Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BAIRD TRUST ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER
CONFIRMATION BILL

KILMARNOCK CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

PETITIONS

Rent Bill

Mr. Orbach: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a humble Petition on the Rent Bill, the purport of which is the same as that of Petitions presented by many hon. Members on this side of the House, on behalf of thousands of citizens of the Borough of Hampstead. These citizens have already appealed to the Minister, who is the right hon. Member representing that borough in this House. They feel that the proposals of the Minister and of Her Majesty's Government in the Rent Bill now before Parliament threaten the wellbeing and happiness of many thousands of families in the borough. The decontrol and insecurity of tenure embraced by that Measure are bound to inflict misery and hardship, and are the cause of great anxiety and foreboding. The Petitioners already have many instances of the activities of rent "sharks" and property racketeers who are anticipating the passage of the Bill.
I also present a Petition from the citizens of the Borough of Willesden in similar terms.
The Petitions conclude:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that the Bill be so amended that tenants shall not be evicted from their homes unless equivalent or alternative accommodation is provided; that rents

shall not be increased unless dwellings are in good habitable repair with reasonable amenities; and that in default of these small amendments the Bill shall be rejected.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Lewis: With your permission, Mr. Speaker and that of the House I desire to present a humble Petition to the honourable Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, on behalf of many constituents of the right hon Member for Luton (Dr. Hill), the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. In view of the fact that the terms of the Petition are almost identical with those of the Petitions presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Orbach) I shall not trouble to read the Petition, but I trust that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will see that it is given due publicity.
The Petition concludes:
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Road Safety

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what consideration his Department has given in the interests of road safety to the effect which any change in the beginning and ending of the period of summer time would have on road accidents; and what are his conclusions.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): The Road Research Laboratory, at the request of my Department, has recently made an analysis to determine the most beneficial arrangements for summer time from the point of view of road safety. The findings are not conclusive, and we hope to receive a further report from the Laboratory in due course.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that many people think it would be advantageous to road


safety if summer time were extended—if it started earlier and ended later?

Mr. Nugent: Yes, we will bear that in mind, but there are considerations on the other side, especially the agricultural ones.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what progress he has made in his discussions with the insurance companies regarding the financing of the road safety campaign.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): The representatives of the insurance companies have recently informed me that they will be glad to co-operate in the forthcoming road safety campaign.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the French insurance companies are now devoting some hundreds of thousands of pounds a year to propaganda and demonstrations of road safety? Would he not think it a good thing if British insurance companies imitated that example? Does he think that enough is really being done by the insurance companies?

Mr. Watkinson: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am very grateful to the insurance companies for now taking a direct interest in road safety. I think that there is a big field here in which they can help, and I hope that they will consider doing perhaps rather more on the lines that my hon. Friend has suggested.

Mr. D. Jones: Is the Minister aware that in France, when the Government lose the confidence of the country, they resign?

Watling Street, Grendon (Safety)

Mr. Moss: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (1) what steps have been taken to improve the safety of Watling Street at Grendon in the County of Warwick;

(2) what representations he has received to improve the safety of Watling Street at Grendon in the County of Warwick; and what improvements have been suggested to him.

Mr. Nugent: We have received representations for a speed limit and for a pedestrian crossing. We consider that

these measures would not be appropriate but that elimination of stationary vehicles on this road would best improve its safety. Accordingly, bus bays have been constructed and "No Waiting" regulations on part of the road are being considered.

Mr. Moss: While I am very grateful to hear what the Minister has said, may I ask whether he has considered whether the number of fatal accidents taking place at that particular spot at Grendon might not justify the erection of large signs to warn motorists that they should be careful, because of that accident area? If he has not considered that, will he do so?

Mr. Nugent: I do accept, of course, that that place has a very bad record, and anything we can do to improve it we should be very glad to do. I will ask our advisers whether they think that that suggestion would help, but the real solution will be the long-term improvement of that road and, of course, the ultimate building of the London-Birmingham and Birmingham-Preston motorways.

Taxi-Cabs (Railway Stations)

Miss Bacon: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he has now given further consideration to the problem of taxis at the Leeds stations, in accordance with his undertaking to the hon. Lady the Member for South-East Leeds; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Royle: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he has now completed his promised consideration of the problem of the use of station ranks by taxi-drivers, following upon the discussions which took place on 19th February between certain hon. Members and the chairman of the British Transport Commission; what are his general conclusions; and what particular conclusions he has reached in regard to taxi-cabs at Exchange Station, Manchester.

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he has now completed his promised consideration of the problem of the use of station ranks by taxi-drivers, following upon the discussions which took place on 19th February between certain hon. Members and the chairman of the British Transport Commission; what are his


general conclusions; and what particular conclusions he has reached in regard to taxi-cabs at two Liverpool stations.

Mr. Brockway: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he has now completed his promised consideration of the problem of the use of station ranks by taxi-drivers, following upon the discussions which took place on 19th February between certain hon. Members and the chairman of the British Transport Commission; what are his general conclusions; and what particular conclusions he has reached in regard to taxi-cabs at Slough station.

Mr. Brockway: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will now apply the recommendation of the Working Party on Hackney Carriages that privileged station ranks should be ended.

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Avation whether he will now make a statement on the use or station taxi ranks by taxi-drivers, in view of discussions with the chairman of the British Transport Commission; and, in particular, how this will affect the situation in Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

Mr. Watkinson: Since this matter was last raised in the House the chairman of The British Transport Commission has carefully investigated the complaints made by hon. Members and I understand that he has written to them. I am now considering the question generally with the Commission.

Miss Bacon: Is the Minister aware that we consider the replies that we have had from the Chairman of the Commission to be very unsatisfactory, and that he does not deal with the main question at all? Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the whole position is very unsatisfactory, and that it is really ludicrous to have free station ranks in some cities and not in others—London free, Leeds paying—and for different rates to be paid; and that, having regard to the convenience of passengers, it would be better if some other arrangement could be adopted?

Mr. Watkinson: I was not, of course, aware until this moment that the hon. Lady was dissatisfied with the Commission's reply but, as I have said, I am considering the question generally with the

Commission. I must, however, make one thing plain. My duty is to try to see that the general convenience of travellers is met, and I think that it must be faced that the tenancy system for cabs does play some part in seeing that there is a service of cabs available at any hour when a station is open.

Mr. Royle: Does not the Minister think that there is a ridiculous anomaly in Manchester, where three main stations are completely open, but Exchange Station is closed in this way? Is he aware that passengers at Exchange, particularly in the holiday period, have to carry their bags about 400 yards down the station approach before being able to get a taxicab? Cannot he take some action himself to let the Chairman of the Commission know how strongly we feel on this matter?

Mr. Blenkinsop: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask whether he would also consider the position in Newcastle where, again, there is no reason at all why a free rank should not be made available? If he is interested in the convenience of passengers, does he not realise that the first object should be to try to ensure that all the taxi-cabs are able to use the station portico in Newcastle?

Mr. Watkinson: Yes, but I am not making any final pronouncement on this subject, Mr. Speaker, because, as I have said, I am considering the broad question of policy with the Commission. But it is equally fair to say that it is the Commission's view—as, I think, expressed to hon. Members—that if we do away with the tenancy system entirely we will find that in the difficult hours—perhaps during the night or when there are other local activities—there will not be any taxis at all.

Mrs. Braddock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I also am very dissatisfied with the reply received from the British Transport Commission? When the right hon. Gentleman is looking at this matter, will he take into account the fact that of over 300 cabs licensed in Liverpool only 87 are permitted to use the three stations in that city; that cabs can collect their passengers and take them into the stations hut, unless licensed by the Transport Commission in Liverpool, are refused permission to pick up passengers from trains and take them from the stations? Would he not consider that, as


the railways are now a public enterprise, the licensed taxi-cabs throughout the country should be permitted freely to use the stations in order to pick up and put down passengers?

Mr. Watkinson: I have said that I am looking into the general policy question with the Commission.

Mr. Brockway: Whilst appreciating that the right hon. Gentleman has said that his mind is open on the matter, may I ask whether, when considering it, he will look at the Report of the Home Office Working Party on Hackney Carriages, which has unanimously recommended that where there is a nearby rank, the station rank shall be fed from it, irrespective of any privilege such as there is at the present time? And would he be ready to receive a deputation representative of a considerable number of hon. Members who are now stirred about the question?

Mr. Watkinson: I am, I think, well aware of the views of hon. Members, particularly after this afternoon. I think had first better have a look at this matter with the Commission.

Heavy Goods Vehicles

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many heavy goods vehicles were affected on 1st May, 1957, by the increase in maximum speed from 20 m.p.h. to 30 m.p.h.; and what steps he is taking to secure the removal from such vehicles of the plate carrying the figures "20".

Mr. Nugent: About 140,000. I hope that owners will see to it that a disc which has ceased to have meaning is removed.

Car Parking, London Airport

Mr. Hunter: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what plans are under consideration for improving car parking facilities at London Airport; and whether he can give an approximate date when these will be carried out.

Mr. Watkinson: Plans for improving car parking facilities at London Airport are part of a larger plan for the further development of the central area which I am now considering. I expect to announce my decision shortly. Meanwhile, there is sufficient parking space to meet immediate

requirements save on a few occasions at holiday weekends.

Mr. Hunter: While appreciating the difficulties involved, may I ask the Minister to endeavour to speed up this matter, because my information is that car parking at London Airport is very difficult for passengers and for the staff?

Mr. Watkinson: I appreciate that, but that is part of a larger problem of how we are going to enlarge the airport from its present capacity of 3 million passengers to about 11 million passengers in a few years' time.

Inland Waterways (Committee's Report)

Mr. W. R. Williams: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what action he proposes to take to speed up the report of the Committee of Inquiry into inland waterways.

Mr. Watkinson: I am assured that the Committee is pressing ahead as quickly as the large volume of evidence permits.

Mr. Williams: Will the Minister try to impress upon the Committee of Inquiry how serious and urgent is this problem of the disused canals? Is he aware that in two canals in the Manchester district as many as 33 young children have lost their lives during the last two years, and that many of these disused canals are nothing but open sewers? Will the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, ask the Committee of Inquiry whether it can deal preferentially with this aspect of the matter and, if necessary, make an interim report to the Minister on the subject?

Mr. Watkinson: I will draw those remarks to the attention of the Bowes Committee, but I am more anxious that it should complete its final report.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that when this Committee was set up, we on these benches prophesied that it would mean at least a two years' delay, which would be intolerable, and when we made that prophecy we were ridiculed by the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Watkinson: No, I do not think I ridicule anybody in this House. What I said was that the Committee would do


its work as quickly as possible. I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that this is a formidable problem, and I want a really first-class detailed report which tries to sift the matter to the bottom. Probably the difference between us is that I am prepared to wait and the right hon. Gentleman is not.

Public Service Vehicles (Utility Type)

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is yet in a position to make a statement on the preparation of special regulations to enable utility-type vehicles to be used as public service vehicles.

Mr. Watkinson: I have recently circulated to interested organisations for comment certain proposals for the amendment of existing regulations to make it easier for these vehicles to qualify as public service vehicles.

Mr. Vane: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him not to delay publishing some new code, because it is of extreme importance to operators of buses in rural areas and the unfortunate people who live in those areas who have no transport?

Mr. Watkinson: I quite agree, and I hope that the people who are being consulted will give us a quick reply, in which case we will get on quickly with the amended regulations.

Stationary Motor Vehicles (Lighting Regulations)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, in view of the different regulations between the lighting of stationary vehicles in secondary roads in the Metropolitan area and in other areas and the confusion arising from this, if he will confer with other appropriate Ministers with a view to securing co-ordination in respect of this matter and the display of prominent notices where co-ordination is not effected or the regulations are different from those in the Metropolitan area.

Mr. Watkinson: I propose shortly to discuss these regulations with the interests concerned.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister aware of the fact that quite a number of

anomalies already exist, and that many well-intentioned citizens who do not want to break the law have been fined 5s. and upwards because they were quite unaware of the fact that they were just outside the London area?

Mr. Watkinson: I am quite aware that there are many anomalies, and that is the purpose of having these discussions. I hope to try to get them sorted out.

Staggered Working Hours, London

Mr. Sharples: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will make a statement with regard to the progress of his campaign to relieve pressure on travel facilities within the London area by staggering hours of work.

Mr. Watkinson: Schemes for five out of the six zones into which central London has been divided for this purpose have now been launched. Working hours for 10,000 staff have already been altered.

Mr. Sharples: Is my right hon. Friend receiving co-operation from industry and from Government Departments?

Mr. Watkinson: Yes, and I should like to say that I think that Mr. Fitzgerald's crush-hour Committee is doing very well and will have a notable effect on London traffic in peak hours.

Traffic Congestion, Doncaster

Mr. Wilfred Paling: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to what extent tile alternative roads north of Doncaster have been used in the attempt to divert traffic away from the town centre; and to what extent traffic congestion in and around Doncaster has been reduced.

Mr. Nugent: Good use is being made of these alternative roads and as a result congestion in Doncaster, particularly north of the Don Bridge, has been considerably reduced.

Mr. Paling: Can the Minister say whether the organisations which arranged these diversions a good many miles north of Doncaster took into account diversions nearer Doncaster, particularly to the west, only a few miles north of Doncaster?

Mr. Nugent: They took into account all the circumstances and thought that these routes provided the best diversions they could find. If the right hon. Member has any suggestions about how this diversion could be done better, I shall be glad to bring them to the attention of the local people.

Motor Cars (Compulsory Testing)

Mr. G. R. Strauss: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what progress he has made with the introduction of his scheme for the compulsory inspection of cars; and when he anticipates a scheme will start to operate.

Mr. Watkinson: Two of my officers have just returned from a visit to the United States of America and Canada to inspect arrangements there for compulsory testing. I cannot yet say exactly when I shall be able to make a start on compulsory testing, but it will be as early next year as I can manage.

Mr. Strauss: Is not the matter being delayed far longer than it ought to be? Does the Minister remember saying, when the Bill was passed, that he would try to put it into operation as soon as possible? In view of the fact that when the scheme is in full operation, about 500 lives a year ought to be saved in this country, according to authoritative estimates, is it not rather late to send two representatives now to America, a year after the passing of the Bill, to see how they are doing such testing?

Mr. Watkinson: I do not in the least mind being pressed about this matter by the right hon. Gentleman; I know that we both want to get it done as quickly as possible, because of its effect on saving lives. The next step is to get out a scheme, and I think I am correct in saying that I am pledged to the House to put the scheme before it in a White Paper. I hope to do that fairly early next year.

London Road, Hadleigh (Accidents)

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many fatal and non-fatal accidents have taken place in the known danger spot on the London Road, Hadleigh, Essex, near the junction of Woodfield Road. in 1955,

1956 and 1957, respectively; what advice was given by his Department to the highway authority; when this advice was first given; what decision has now been made; and when the necessary works will be started.

Mr. Nugent: In 1955, there was one fatal accident and two involving personal injury. In 1956, there was one fatal accident and one involving personal injury. Both fatalities were to pedestrians. There have been no accidents involving death or personal injury during 1957. The county council, as highway authority, was advised in August last year to hold a census of pedestrians, and in October to consider the provision of an island refuge. The county council has, however, decided not to provide one.

Mr. Braine: There have already been two deaths at this point, and the matter was raised with the county council, as the highway authority, well over a year ago. Nothing has been done, in spite of advice given by my right hon. Friend's Departmental officers, and a decision has now been reached to put in a pedestrian crossing. Might I ask that it should be done with the greatest expedition, in order to avoid the accidents which otherwise will occur as summer traffic down the Southend Road increases?

Mr. Nugent: We shall be very ready too expedite the fixing of the island there if the local highway authority has agreed to do it, and to do anything else we can.

Mr. Lipton: Will the Joint Parliamentary Secretary pay a little more attention to the representations of his hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine), which seem to me to be at variance with those of the Essex County Council? Surely, the hon. Gentleman should not disregard the local knowledge of his hon. Friend in the way that he appears to be doing.

Mr. Braine: Is my hon. Friend aware that there has been a long dispute between the highway authority and the local authority? If two authorities cannot come to an agreement, surely it is the responsibility of the Minister of Transport to ensure that agreement is reached.

Mr. Nugent: We will certainly use our good offices to try to reach that agreement.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Does my hon. Friend agree that many of the unresolved questions today would be best answered in a debate, such as we have not had for some time, with possibly one day devoted to roads and another to rail and air? If my hon. Friend agrees, will he communicate his views to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House so that a statement might be made before the Recess?

Mr. Nugent: No doubt that observation of my noble Friend will be taken note of.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. In view of the fact that the 57 Questions to the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation have not all been answered, would it not be advisable that we might have two days for transport Questions?

Mr. Speaker: All these are not matters for me.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

London—Colchester—North-East Essex Road

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will make a statement with regard to the major improvements that are being made on the road London—Colchester—northeast Essex within the next two years.

Mr. Nugent: Four major improvements schemes are in progress. We hope to authorise four more within the next two years.

Mr. Ridsdale: Has the Minister received reports of the severe stoppages on this road last Sunday, and would he take steps to ensure that a really progressive attitude is adopted towards traffic control on it so as to make sure that the speed at Gallows Corner and other such junctions at least equals the speed at Tattenham Corner today?

Mr. Nugent: I do not know about the latter feature, Mr. Speaker, but the Gallows Corner roundabout is, of course, being improved now. If there are any other points on the road that my hon. Friend feels need attention in regard to speed, and will let me know, I shall be very glad to look into those matters.

New Traffic Signs

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to what extent the new traffic signs are tested for visibility and effectiveness in a scientific manner by the Road Research Laboratory before being finally approved for use on the road.

Mr. Nugent: We make use of the aid of the Road Research Laboratory whenever scientific research is involved, but I do not think that their help is required where established principles are applied to new traffic signs.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are in the world today two generally accepted principles—the European system and United Nations system, which is a combination of the European and the American systems—but that the Regulations which came into operation on 1st March, issued by Her Majesty's Government, conform to neither? Can my hon. Friend say with which of the two main systems we intend to comply?

Mr. Nugent: That supplementary question goes a good deal wider than the Question. The reply is broadly that we are following our established practice, our own system, and we think that on balance that is to the general benefit.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Does the hon. Gentleman's first reply mean that no scientific test whatsoever was made by anybody about the effectiveness of the new traffic signs before they were adopted?

Mr. Nugent: No, not at all. There was a good deal of scientific research. The distinction that I was making was that with a great many new traffic signs there is a large common denominator which has already been covered by experience and therefore further research is not needed.

Severn Bridge Scheme

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (1) if, in order to assist the early authorisation of the Severn bridge project, he will consider the institution of a special loan fund to meet the estimated cost; and if he will make a statement;

(2) what reply he has given to recent representations from Welsh and west of England local authorities regarding the need for a Severn bridge; what reasons have caused this project now to be relegated in terms of priority below the scheme for a Tyne crossing; and if lie will make a statement.

Mr. Grenfell: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will now give an assurance that arrangements will be made to initiate the Severn bridge project during the life of the present Government.

Mr. Watkinson: I have told the local authorities that I will include the Severn bridge scheme, which with the ancillary roads is estimated to cost some £36 million, in my road programme as soon as economic and financial considerations allow. The way in which the scheme is financed will not affect the priority which I can give to it.

Mr. Gower: As my right hon. Friend has said, as he has done on former occasions, that the cost of this scheme appears to be the obstacle, would it not be wise to give the public at large the opportunity of showing their confidence in such a project, which would be of great benefit to Wales and south-west England? Secondly, is it not a fact that this scheme until a few years ago ranked in priority well above the Forth and Tyne crossings —[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, it is a fact—and can he explain why, so mysteriously, this scheme has been deferred and the others have been allowed to proceed?

Mr. Watkinson: Perhaps my hon. Friend did not take note of the last part of my Answer. I said that the way in which the scheme is financed will not affect the priority which I can give to it. As to the argument on which schemes have priority over others, I think the House has already indicated that I would be unwise to enter into that.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was the belief of the conference that if it agreed to the toll system, it could get a much higher priority, and that now the representatives of South Wales authorities are beginning to believe that the right hon. Gentleman led them up the garden path?

Mr. Watkinson: That just is not so, What I said to the conference, which the right hon. Gentleman attended, was "No tolls, no bridge", and I am glad that they now agree on the question of tolls. That, at least, will make the construction of the bridge possible.

Mr. Wilkins: May I ask the Minister whether he is aware that it is twenty-one years since a committee sat to inquire into this project and made representations to the then Government? How does it come about that after twenty-one years of negotiations we now have to take second or third place to the Tyne tunnel, the Tay bridge, or the Forth road bridge?

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the Minister assure us that those of us living on the Tyne will not be put back because of this extraordinary wildcat scheme for a bridge which appears to defer the project for a Tyne tunnel, which has been before the House for very many years?

Mr. Shinwell: Is the Minister aware that in 1922 I mentioned the matter of the Forth road bridge?

Mr. Gower: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek the earliest possible opportunity of raising the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Outer By-pass, Stamford

Sir R. Conant: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is prepared to consider the provision of an outer by-pass as being more effective than the proposed inner relief road for the heavy traffic which at present has to pass through Stamford on the Great North Road.

Mr. Watkinson: Yes, Sir. I have decided not to proceed with the inner relief road scheme, but to build the outer by-pass instead on the line established in 1939.

Sir R. Conant: Would my right hon. Friend care to estimate how long it will be before this project, which has been thought of for at least twenty years, will be completed?

Mr. Watkinson: No, I cannot give a definite date at the moment, but I am quite sure that my hon. and gallant Friend is right in suggesting that we ought to build the outer by-pass and not the


inner road. I have already made some progress in deciding that, and will make some more as soon as I can.

London (Signposting)

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether the through route signposting of London recommended by the Working Party set up in 1950 has yet been completed; what progress is being made with local direction signposting outside the inner ring road; whether plans have yet been made for the signposting of the area within the inner ring road; and which local authorities have failed to co-operate in implementing the Working Party's scheme.

Mr. Nugent: The through route sign-posting will shortly be complete. Local signposting outside the inner ring road is proceeding, but there are still some gaps. Plans for the area within the inner ring road have now been prepared and are being considered. Not all councils have been equally prompt, but none has entirely failed to co-operate.

Double White-Line Experiment

Mr. J. Howard: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what conclusions he has drawn from the double white-line experiment.

Mr. Watkinson: The initial phase of this experiment has shown the need for more contrast in the different forms of carriageway markings, and I am examining certain changes. We shall hope to try these out in the second phase of the experiment.

Mr. Howard: As my right hon. Friend will be aware, this form of marking has been in existence in France for some time. Does he agree that it is important to draw the attention of motorists to the fact that although it may be safe to cross the white line on leaving a bend, it is dangerous to cross the white line on entering a bend?

Mr. Watkinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the scheme. There is much merit in trying to use the double white-line scheme in this country. I propose to continue my experiments to try to find the best way of doing it.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman say to what extent observa-

tions have shown that the white line is being observed? In reply to a previous Question he said that if necessary he would take compulsory powers to compel adherence to the requirement that motorists should keep to the right side of the line. Is he considering taking compulsory powers?

Mr. Watkinson: Yes, but not until we have carried out more experiments and I am satisfied that we have found the best form of double white-line marking for this country.

Canal Bridge, Four Ashes

Miss Lee: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is aware that the abandonment of the Canal Bridge, near Four Ashes, Staffordshire, is causing inconvenience and additional expense to omnibus users in the area; what would be the cost of strengthening the bridge so that it can again carry public service vehicles; and whether this cost would be more or less than the fares charged in five years for the additional mileage of 22,954 miles per year made necessary by the changed route.

Mr. Nugent: The bridge has not been abandoned. Its owner, the British Transport Commission has come to the conclusion that it is unsafe for vehicles of over 5 tons laden weight, and the bus route has therefore been altered. A provisional estimate of the cost of strengthening the bridge is £2,500.

Miss Lee: I think the Minister knows that I was not putting the point that the bridge has been abandoned but that its use by public vehicles has been abandoned. Will he look into the fact that the inconvenience and the additional length of the working day caused to many people in the area is far in excess of what we believe would be the cost of mending the bridge? As it is causing expense and lengthening the working day, will the hon. Gentleman please exert himself to have the bridge made suitable to carry public vehicles?

Mr. Nugent: The Traffic Commismissioners considered this matter very carefully when the application was made to divert the route; but I understand that the highway authority—the county council—is in consultation with the British Transport Commission, and I can but hope that something useful will


eventuate from that. In any event, I will have the hon. Lady's observations drawn to their attention.

Thames Embankment (Riverside Highway)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what further progress has been made with the scheme for a riverside highway along the Thames Embankment.

Mr. Watkinson: The London County Council, which is the highway and planning authority, examined the scheme for a riverside highway jointly with the Port of London Authority and my Department and the conclusion was reached that the project was not one which should proceed at the present time. This decision was announced last December.

Mr. Lipton: Does the Minister recall that he spoke highly of this scheme for a riverside highway from Blackfriars to Battersea? I am not asking him to he too impetuous in the matter, but will he include it in the new road programme now being prepared for the four-year period after the present programme ends in 1959? Would not it make a contribution to the relief of traffic congestion in London?

Mr. Watkinson: The question is whether one would be able to spend the £8 million to £10 million that it would cost in relieving congestion mare profitably elsewhere.

Outer Ring Road, Manchester

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is aware of the need for both an inner and outer ring road round Manchester, with fly-overs or underpasses, where they cross the principal radial roads leading from the centre of the city; and what plans have been submitted to him by the local authority for the construction of such roads.

Mr. Nugent: Proposals for ring roads round Manchester are included in the development plans of the several local authorities concerned. My right hon. Friend has also confirmed the Lancashire County Council's special road scheme for the part of the outer ring between Stretford and Eccles. We have already

made a grant of nearly £2½ million towards the construction of this part, the plans for which provide for fly-overs or underpasses at junctions.

Mr. Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is not much sign of these plans being put into effect? Unless something is done very soon to keep through traffic out of the centre of Manchester, the whole of the traffic in the city will come to a standstill.

Mr. Nugent: I know that there is a serious traffic problem there, but I think that my hon. Friend will see considerable progress with that scheme in the course of coming months.

Mr. W. R. Williams: The hon. Gentleman referred to the outer ring road but not to the inner ring road, which is quite as important. Has he anything to say about that?

Mr. Nugent: I am afraid I am not able to announce any immediate scheme dealing with the inner ring road.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the new road proposed between Stretford and Eccles deals with one of the most urgent questions in the country? If so, may I ask him whether it is the intention of the Ministry to give it super-priority?

Mr. Nugent: Yes, it is indeed. We have already made a grant towards the first part of it, and I hope that it will not be long before we go on with the second part.

Motor Road Programme

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he has considered the plan submitted to Her Majesty's Government by the British Road Federation for the faster building of motorways; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Watkinson: I am most anxious to speed up the constructional work on the motor road programme which should start early next year. I am having discussions with the interests involved and will see that the views of the British Road Federation are taken into account.

Mr. Johnson: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he is aware that the plan I have in mind deals mainly with finance, and I


think that it was addressed in the first instance to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, but it is none the less most important because its adoption would give him a much freer hand when pressing on with the many schemes that he has in mind?

Mr. Watkinson: I do not agree with that at all. The plan I have in mind is that it is my job to get the roads built as quickly as possible; and the question of finance does not enter into that particular problem.

Traffic Engineers

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether, after consultation with the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, he will appoint a working party to include traffic engineers with experience of traffic engineering abroad to review London traffic requirements and recommend major road improvements in accordance with modern traffic engineering technique as practised in the United States of America and on the Continent.

Mr. Watkinson: This suggestion is one of a number to which I am at present giving careful consideration.

Mr. Davies: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him whether he does not realise that there is growing concern at the fact that London appears to be lagging far behind the other capital cities of Europe in carrying out modern engineering works to relieve the increasing traffic congestion? While we have traffic engineers in this country, they do not seem to be used to the full advantage. Has not the right hon. Gentleman just stated that finance is not an obstacle? What is holding up modern construction in this country?

Mr. Watkinson: What I suggested was that the question of how to finance a road scheme is quite a different matter from the speed at which it is constructed. The traffic engineer has a very important part to play in the second matter, and that is why I said that I am looking into this question.

Highway Construction (Preliminary Processes)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether, with a view to expediting new

highway construction, he will review the possibility of carrying out some of the preliminary legal, designing, planning and contract-drawing processes in parallel rather than in series.

Mr. Watkinson: Wherever possible, this is already being done. I cannot do more unless I over-ride the rights of individuals, which I am not prepared to do.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a good deal of dissatisfaction about the time which elapses between the announcement of a major road scheme here in the House and the time when the first bulldozer gets to work? Would it not be possible to adopt the technique of industry, that is, to put the lawyers, contract planners, designers, etc., all to work at the same time, so that, instead of working one after the other, they would all work in parallel?

Mr. Watkinson: Because I thought that it might be of interest to hon. Members, I have placed in the Library of the House a record of all the various stages which have to be gone through by my Department and the other interests involved, including local authorities, before we cover the gap between the announcement of a very large scheme and putting it out to contract. I think that, if any hon. Member who is interested cares to study that, he will see that what I have said is true, that one cannot do more to cut down the time unless one is prepared to over-ride the rights of individuals.

Roundabout, Lambeth Bridge

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what the traffic capacity of the roundabout at the east end of Lambeth Bridge will be when it is completed; how many police are required to control traffic there now; and how many are expected to be needed when the work is completed.

Mr. Nugent: It is estimated that the capacity will be about 4,000 vehicles per hour. Up to five police officers are required at present to control traffic at peak hours. I hope that no police control will be necessary when the work is complete.

Mr. Russell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that traffic at this end of Lambeth Bridge is often very congested, particularly in peak hours, and does he really


think that the other end will be any better? Should not an underpass be thought of in this connection, and not a roundabout?

Mr. Nugent: I am confident that the roundabout will be a considerable improvement over what we have now, and I think that, on present traffic volumes, it will be able to cope. If the volume of traffic becomes heavier in the future, it may be that we shall have to think again.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

Port Facilities

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will now make a further statement on the steps which are being taken to improve the facilities in our ports by widening and deepening the entrances for this purpose.

Mr. Watkinson: This matter is the direct responsibility of the port authorities. Many important deepening and widening works are at present being undertaken or are planned, including, in particular, works in the Mersey, the Clyde, and at Sunderland and Southampton.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that the construction of shipping is outstripping the construction of ports; that the ports which we have were made to accommodate ships that were constructed forty years ago and that now we have ships on t he stocks that cannot be accommodated in any port in this country? Would he hold an inquiry into the position in oar ports?

Mr. Watkinson: I think that the hon. Gentleman is not quite right in saying that the construction of ships—by which. I think, he means the tonnage and size of ships—is outstripping the capacity of the ports. Perhaps I could send him a list of some of the works that are now going on—it is far too long to read it at Question time—which will show him that a great deal of work is being done to prepare for the larger ships.

Suez Canal Pilots

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, how many of the British Suez Canal pilots who withdrew their labour at the commencement

of the crisis have been reinstated, now that British ships are sailing through; what alternative employment has been found for the remainder; and what compensation has been given to them and their families for loss and disturbance as a result of the action they were compelled to take.

Mr. Watkinson: I have not heard that any of these pilots have either sought or been offered employment by the Egyptian Suez Canal Authority, and I cannot say what alternative employment they may have found. These pilots were employees of the Suez Canal Company, which is responsible for any questions relating to compensation.

Mr. Awbery: While expressing my appreciation for anything that has been done for the pilots, may I ask the Minister whether he will give an undertaking that these men, who carried out the instructions of the Government, will not suffer as a consequence of carrying out those instructions?

Mr. Watkinson: These pilots carried out the instructions of the Suez Canal Company, and I understand that the company is doing all that it can to help those who are in need.

Liability of Seagoing Vessels (Conference)

Mr. Knox Cunningham: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the date of the commencement of the international conference organised by the Belgian Government and relating to the limitation of liability of seagoing vessels; and whether he will instruct the delegates of Her Majesty's Government at such conference to support the adoption of the draft convention, dated 29th September, 1955, and prepared by the International Maritime Committee, and in particular Article 3 (3) of the said convention.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Airey Neave): The conference will begin on 30th September, 1957. Consultations are taking place with the many interests which would be affected if a convention on the lines of the draft prepared by the International Maritime Committee were adopted. These must be completed before instructions are given to the delegates of Her Majesty's Government at this conference.

Mr. Knox Cunningham: I thank my hon. Friend for that Reply, but is he aware that, unless some tonnage figure is deemed to be the minimum for the purpose of limitation, any increase in the amount per ton in the case of tugs or fishing vessels will be rendered valueless where there are claims for loss of life or personal injuries, and does he not regard a figure of 300 tons as a very fair minimum?

Mr. Neave: I do not think that I am in a position at this stage, when consultations are going on with the organisations representing the owners of a very wide range of small craft, to say what Her Majesty's Government's attitude at the conference will be, but I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend says.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Railway Link, Central London— London Airport

Mr. Hunter: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is yet in a position to give further information of the proposed railway link between the Air Terminal, Waterloo, and London Airport.

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what progress has been made towards the provision of a rail link between central London rail termini and London Airport.

Mr. Watkinson: I am now studying, in consultation with the Chairmen of the British Transport Commission and the Airways Corporations, the Report of the Committee set up by the Commission to consider the possibility of a rail link between London and the airport.

Mr. Hunter: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him whether he will use his best endeavours to get the matter speeded up, for the congestion on the road between Waterloo and London Airport is very bad and the matter is very urgent?

Mr. Watkinson: The matter may be very urgent, but some of the present proposals would close the main runway at London Airport for a considerable period, and that would cause even more congestion.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will not the opening of the now coach station at Cromwell Road shorten the journey by about 15 minutes, and could my right hon. Friend say when that is likely to be open?

Mr. Watkinson: I think I am right in saying that the new terminal building at Cromwell Curve will be open before the end of the year, and that, in conjunction with the Cromwell Road Extension, should give a journey time to the airport of not more than about half an hour.

Automatic Train Control

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, in the interests of increased safety for the rail travelling public, what increase in automatic train control has taken place in the last twelve months; and at the present rate of progress how long it will be before all main lines and the locomotives working on them, whether steam, electric, or diesel electric, are appropriately equipped for automatic train control.

Mr. Watkinson: During the last twelve months the automatic train control test length was extended from 77 to 210 track miles. Since the British Transport Commission received my final approval of the system last November, it has been pressing ahead with its plans to provide the equipment on all the main traffic routes as quickly as possible. It is the Commission's intention to equip more than 1,300 miles of route, together with some 10,000 locomotives, by the end of 1962.

Mr. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with that rate of progress?

Mr. Watkinson: Yes; on the whole, I am satisfied, bearing in mind that we are at the beginning of this re-equipment programme. I think that progress will speed up.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Is it not a fact that this automatic train control system was well known before nationalisation but that it is only since nationalisation that action has been taken?

Mr. Watkinson: That is quite untrue, because the Great Western Railway was the pioneer in automatic train control and had it in operation.

Mr. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I think that he gave a very satisfactory answer to my Question? [An HON. MEMBER: "Then why grumble?"] I am not grumbling.

Victoria Underground Line

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will now state the outcome of his consultations in regard to proceeding with the construction of the Victoria line tube.

Mr. Watkinson: I have had an approach from the British Transport Commission about the construction of this line and I am now considering the financial problems which it poses.

Mr. Davies: Is the Minister giving the most urgent attention to this matter? Does he not appreciate that the growing congestion in London is rapidly bringing traffic into a state of chaos, and that if there is not some relief to surface traffic by the increase in the provision of underground tube lines the situation will become desperate? Will the right hon. Gentleman give the most urgent consideration to this matter and announce a decision as soon as possible?

Mr. Watkinson: This project, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is not exactly a new one. It has been on the cards for a great many years. I am now examining it, but there are two problems. One is that a very large capital expenditure is required, and the other is whether it can be made to show a profit or whether it will show a heavy loss.

Mr. Davies: But would not the expenditure of this very large sum on constructing a new tube to relieve surface traffic be better than spending it on street widening, etc., which is even more expensive in London?

Mr. Watkinson: That is the relevant point which I am considering.

Major Legge-Bourke: is my right hon. Friend aware that at the meeting of the Select Committee, of which I was Chairman, to consider the Bill for constructing this line we were informed by the British Transport Commission representative that on no account could the tube ever be made to pay? Will my right hon. Friend make sure, it he does decide to go ahead with this line, that it is thoroughly justified, in spite of that?

Mr. Watkinson: I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for pointing that out, because it is one of the great problems. I understand that it is not possible to make this any kind of a paying proposition.

Mr. Royle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It might be helpful to hon. Members who from time to time serve on such Select Committees to know whether it is proper to mention views expressed in those Committees, as the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) has done.

Mr. Speaker: I think it is in order if it is long after the event and the Committee has reported. There is no objection to it then. It is, of course, out of order to make any disclosure of what happened in a Select Committee before the Committee reports to the House. Perhaps that is what is in the hon. Gentleman's mind.

Major Legge-Bourke: Further to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. May I thank you for the protection which you have accorded me, and may I say that this Bill was reported to the House over a year ago?

Mr. Speaker: That was the point that I was anxious to find out before I gave my Ruling.

Waterloo-Bank Underground Line (Improvements)

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what plans for improvement to the Waterloo-Bank underground railway, including the Bank terminal, have now been submitted to him for approval.

Mr. Watkinson: I understand that work is starting this month on the installation at the Bank terminal of "travelators" which will speed up the movement of traffic at peak hours.

Mr. Collins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this railway, commonly called "the drain", is in a shocking state of dirt and dilapidation, and that if cattle were crowded into the trains in the way that City workers are there would be prosecutions? Although "travelators" may help they will not solve those two problems. Will the right hon. Gentleman take urgent action to get the place


cleaned up and to see what he can do to help in solving the really bad problem of overcrowding?

Mr. Watkinson: I will call to the attention of the Commission what the hon. Gentleman has said, but the "travelators" will make a major contribution to solving the worst problem of all, and that is the very long and crowded walk from the station up to the Bank.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Aberdeen Flying School and Club

Mr. Spence: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will permit Aberdeen Flying School and Aberdeen Flying Club to resume training under their pre-war leases.

Mr. Neave: My right hon. Friend is ready, as he and his predecessors have always been, to permit the companies to resume trading on reasonable terms, but I regret that the pre-war leases contain provisions which would not be suitable in current conditions.

Mr. Spence: May I ask the Minister whether he is aware that the terms on which he is inviting the recommencement of the work of the flying club and school are on a year-to-year basis, with no security in regard to the monopoly of these services? Is he aware that those are terms which no sane person could accept, and does he realise that it is his attitude which is denying a flying school and club to Aberdeen?

Mr. Neave: I do not realise that it is because of my action that this is so. This matter in regard to monopoly rights arose in 1950, when negotiations broke down. On 29th May, I suggested that representatives of this company should come to my Ministry, and I am quite willing to see them and to continue the negotiations.

Mr. Spence: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is aware that Aberdeen Flying Club's pavilion has been unoccupied since the end of the war; and if he will state the date on which it was vacated.

Mr. Neave: Yes, Sir. The pavilion was transferred with vacant possession from the Air Ministry to the Ministry of

Civil Aviation on 31st May, 1946. It was derequisitioned on 24th August, 1946. Although, at the request of the company, the derequisition notice was subsequently cancelled, the club has remained in possession.

Mr. Spence: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how long the furniture and assets of Aberdeen Flying Club's Pavilion have been stored what is the total amount which has been paid for storage; the current annual cost of storage to his Department; and if he will compensate Aberdeen Flying Club for depreciation and obsolescence of stored goods.

Mr. Neave: The furniture and effects of the Aberdeen Flying Club's pavilion have been stored since the requisition of the pavilion on 13th October, 1939. The total amount paid for storage is £665 16s. 7d., including chattels from another of the club's buildings; the annual storage cost is £39. There is no statutory provision for the payment of compensation for depreciation or obsolescence of the goods so stored.

Mr. Spence: Will the Minister say why he does not return to the club that furniture which has been in his hands for the last twelve years? Is it not a gross waste of public money to store that furniture, when it could be of use in its original place?

Mr. Neave: I am quite prepared to discuss the question of ultimate responsibility for these storage charges with Mr. Gandar Dower, as I suggested last week.

South America (Service)

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is aware of the regret existing in South America and those who trade with it at the absence of British air services; and whether he will indicate when aircraft will be provided for the resumption of British Overseas Airways Corporation's operations on this route.

Mr. Watkinson: I hope there are many who, like myself, want to see British air services to every part of the world, including South America. But as I have explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd), there are good


reasons why I cannot yet forecast when B.O.A.C. will be able to resume operations on this route.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, during this present period when economically we are not perhaps in a position to do much trade with South America because of other priorities, it is important that this connection should be kept, and that this is one of the ways by which it would seem practicable to make our friends in South America realise that Britain is still interested in that enormous and great country?

Mr. Watkinson: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to know that, in reply to an earlier Question which has not been asked orally. I would have said that B.O.A.C. is sending a survey team of seven people to South America this month to survey market conditions and the possibilities of restarting the service.

Air Commodore Harvey: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that a national company like B.O.A.C., which has a monopoly on all the trunk routes of Britain, has an obligation to give some sort of service? Would he say that if the Corporation fails to give that service, it should be open to somebody else to do so?

Mr. Watkinson: The service is open to anybody now, because it is not being run by any company. Therefore, it is open to any company to ask permission.

Mr. Beswick: Can the Minister tell us what is the object of the market survey, because, as a matter of fact, the Corporation has had offices in that continent throughout the period in which the service has been terminated? Were we not given to understand before that this was entirely a matter of the availability of aircraft, and can he now say whether there is any possibility of a suitable aircraft coming along in the foreseeable future?

Mr. Watkinson: I think the hon. Gentleman knows that the long-range Britannia was ordered for this purpose, as well as for the North Atlantic. Therefore, it seems to be an appropriate time for the Corporation to send out one or two of its, experts to have a look at the market in the light of present conditions.

Independent Air Transport Operators

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what new arrangements or regulations he proposes to make for the assistance of the independent air transport operators.

Mr. Watkinson: I informed the House on 20th February that I was reviewing, the basis of the Colonial coach services to take account of changing conditions. These include the increasing economic difficulty of using older aircraft, constitutional changes limiting the scope for Colonial coach services, and the trend towards very high density seating in the tourist class with corresponding fare reductions for that class of service. As I stated then, I sought the advice of the Air Transport Advisory Council on this problem. I have now received and am studying its recommendations. I am consulting interested colonial Governments also, and I hope to be able to make an announcement as soon as I have their views.

Mr. Beswick: Does the Minister recall that he said last week also
I hope before long to bring to this House proposals which, I think, will be of value to private enterprise airlines."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th May, 1957; Vol. 571, c. 401.]
When he made that remark, was he referring only to this one route through Africa, which affects, of course, only two of the large operators, or has he any other proposals in mind?

Mr. Watkinson: That remark referred to the recommendations which I have received from the A.T.A.C. which, as I have told the hon. Gentleman. I will announce but cannot announce now because they have not been cleared through colonial Governments.

Mr. Beswick: Would the Minister bear in mind that any proposals that he brings forward will be accepted by this House if they are of value to these private enterprise companies, but only if they do not involve expenditure of public money and do not impede the proper development of the Corporations?

Mr. Watkinson: I quite agree, and I will make an announcement as soon as I can.

INDIAN MINISTER OF DEFENCE (TALK)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his recent discussions with the Defence Minister of India.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I have been asked to reply. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] My right hon. Friend is attending an important meeting.
The recent talk between my right hon. Friend and the Indian Minister of Defence was quite informal, and there is no statement to make.

Mr. Lewis: Whilst it may have been informal, is the Minister aware that the Press has reported that the Indian Defence Minister was anxious to buy some British jets, and that if he could not get them he was liable to go to the Soviet Union? Can we have an assurance that, if at all possible and commensurate with our own defence programme, the Government will do all they can to assist and help India with the planes, if India wants them?

Mr. Sandys: In general, I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. If he wishes to have detailed information, perhaps he will address the question to the Minister of Supply.

RADIOSTRONTIUM

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Prime Minister if, in view of its heavy rainfall and density of population, he will have

tests made by the Medical Research Council of the degree and rate of fall-out of strontium-90 in Lancashire.

Mr. Sandys: I have been asked to reply.
The Medical Research Council is obtaining samples of soil, vegetation, milk and bone from widely distributed parts of the country; and their content of radiostrontium is being analysed.
The choice of the particular sites is a matter for expert decision and will be designed to give a representative indication of levels in the United Kingdom. As the results are published, they will be placed in the Library of the House.

Mr. Allaun: Since the fall-out from hydrogen bombs already dropped will increase over the next twenty-eight years, will the Minister arrange for continuous inspection, and, if tragic effects emerge subsequently, will it not then be rather too late?

Mr. Sandys: If I am still responsible after twenty-eight years, I will see what I can do about it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,

That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Heath.]

The House divided: Ayes 271, Noes 207.

Division No. 135.]
AYES
[3.34 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Black, C. W.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.


Aitken, W. T.
Boothby, Sir Robert
Corfield, Capt. F. V.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Bossom, Sir Alfred
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)


Alport, C. J. M.
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Cunningham, Knox


Anstruther-Cray, Major Sir William
Boyle, Sir Edward
Currie, G. B. H.


Arbuthnot, John
Braine, B. R.
Dance, J. C. G.


Armstrong, C. W.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Davidson, Viscountess


Atkins, H. E.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Davies,Rt.Hon.Clement(Montgomery)


Baldook, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Baldwin, A. E.
Brooman-White, R. C.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.


Balniel, Lord
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.


Barber, Anthony
Bryan, P.
Drayson, G. B.


Barlow, Sir John
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
du Cann, E. D. L.


Barter, John
Burden, F. F. A.
Duthie, W. S.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Campbell, Sir David
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Carr, Robert
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. (Kelvingrove)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Cary, Sir Robert
Elliott,R.W.(N'castle upon Tyne,N.)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn


Bidgood, J. C.
Cole, Norman
Erroll, F. J.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Farey-Jones F. W.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Cooke, Robert C.
Finlay, Graeme


Bishop, F. P.
Cooper, A. E.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.




Fort, R.
Kershaw, J. A.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'ombe &amp; Lonsdale)
Kimball, M.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Freeth, Denzil
Kirk, P. M.
Profumo, J. D.


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Raikes, Sir Victor


Gammans, Lady
Lambton, Viscount
Ramsden, J. E.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Redmayne, M.


George, J. G. (Pollok)
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Gibson-Watt, D.
Leavey, J. A.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Glover, D.
Leburn, W. G.
Ridsdale, J. E.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Legge-Bourke, Mai. E. A. H.
Rippon, A. G. F.


Goodhart, Philip
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Robertson, Sir David


Gougth, C. F. H.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Gower, H. R.
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Robson-Brown, W.


Graham, Sir Fergus
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Llewellyn, D. T.
Roper, Sir Harold


Green, A.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Gresham Cooke, R.
Longden, Gilbert
Russell, R. S.


Grimond, J
Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp;Chiswick)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Sharpies, R. C.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
McAdden, S. J.
Shepherd, William


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Harris, Readet (Heston)
McKibbin, A. J.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Soames, Christopher


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Speir, R. M.


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Maclean, Fitzroy (Lanoaster)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)


Hay, John
McLean, Nell (Inverness)
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Maddan, Martin
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Maltland, Cdr.J.F.W.(Horncastle)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Hesketh, R. F.
Maltland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Storey, S.


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Manningham-Bulter, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Mathew, R.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Mawby, R. L.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Teeling, W.


Holt, A. F.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. H.
Temple, John M.


Hope, Lord John
Moore, Sir Thomas
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Hornby, R. P.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Horobin, Sir Ian
Nairn, D. L. S.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr.R.(Croydon, S.)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Neave, Airey
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Nicholls, Harmar
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'mth, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Nugent, G. R. H.
Vane, W. M. F.


Hutchison, A. M. C. (Edinburgh, S.)
Oakshott, H. D.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clarke'E'b'gh, W.)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Vlokers, Miss Joan


Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Hyde, Montgomery
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Iremonger, T. L.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Irvine, Bryant Codman (Rye)
Osborne, C.
Wall, Major Patrick


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Page, R. G.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Partridge, E.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Piokrhorn, K. W. M.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Joseph, Sir Keith
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Wood, Hon. R.


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Woollam, John Victor


Kaberry, D.
Pott, H. P.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Powell, J. Enoch



Kerr, H. W.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Wills and Mr. Hughes-Young.




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Blyton, W. R.
Carmichael, J.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Boardman, H.
Champion, A. J.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Chapman, W. D.


Awbery, S. S.
Bowles, F. G.
Clunle, J.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Coldrick, W.


Baird, J.
Brockway, A. F.
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)


Balfour, A.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Benoe, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Cove, W. G.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Burke, W. A.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Beswiok, Frank
Burton, Miss F. E.
Cronin, J. D.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C)
Cullen, Mrs. A.


Blackburn, F.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Callaghan, L. J.
Davies, Harold (Leek)







Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pryde, D. J.


Deer, G.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Randall, H. E.


Dodds, N. N.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Rankin, John


Donnelly, D. L.
King, Dr. H. M.
Redhead, E. C.


Dugdale Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Lawson, G. M.
Reid, William


Dye, S.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Edelman, M.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Lewis, Arthur
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lindgren, G, S.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Edward, Robert (Bilston)
Lipton, Marcus
Ross, William


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Logan, D. G.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
MacColl, J. E.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Fernyhough, E.
MacDermot, Niall
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Fienburgh, W.
McGhee, H, G.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Fletcher, Eric
McInnes, J.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Forman, J. C.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Snow, J. W.


Gaitskell, Rt. H. T. N.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Sorensen, R. W.


George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Car'then)
Marion, Simon
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank



Mainwaring, W. H.
Sparks, J. A.


Gibson, C. W.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Steele, T.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Stewart, Michael (Futham)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mason, Roy
Stonehouse, John


Grey, C. F.
Mayhew, C. P.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mellish, R. J.
Straohey, Rt. Hon. J.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Messer, Sir F.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Griffiths, William (Exohange)
Mikardo, Ian
Stross,Dr.Bamett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Hale, Leslie
Mitchlson, G. R.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Hamilton, W. W.
Monslow, W.
Swingler, S. T.


Hannan, W.
Moody, A. S.
Sylvester, G. O.


Hastings, S.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hayman, F. H.
Morrison, Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Healey, Denis
Mort, D. L.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Moss, R.
Thornton, E.


Herbison, Miss M.
Moyle, A.
Tomney, F.


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Mulley, F. W.
Viant, S. P.


Hobson, C. R. (Kelghley)
Oliver, G. H.
Warbey, W. N.


Holmes, Horace
Oram, A. E.
Watkins, T. E.


Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Orbach, M.
Weitzman, D.


Hoy, J. H.
Oswald, T.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hubbard, T. F.
Owen, W. J.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Palmer, A. M. F.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Hunter, A. E.
Pargiter, G. A.
Williams, David (Neath)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Parkin, B. T.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Paton, John
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pearson, A.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Janner, B.
Pentland, N.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Jeger, Mrs.Lena(Holbn &amp;St.Pncs.S.)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Jenkins, Roy (Steohford)
Popplewell, E.
Woof, R. E.


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Prentice, R. E.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Zilliacus, K.


Jones, Rt. Hon. A.Creech(Wakefield)
Probert, A. R.



Jones, David (The Hartiepools)
Proctor, W. T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Short and Mr. Wilkins.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING AND TOWN DEVELOPMENT (SCOTLAND) BULL

Order for Third Reading read.

3.42 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
If the beginning of that opening sentence is held to be reminiscent of a number of speeches which I made during a recent stage of this Bill, hon. Members will, I believe, concede that not only were they brief, but that there was no ambiguity about them. On this occasion I will not be quite so brief, but I hope, nevertheless, that I will be able to say what I have to say without detaining the House excessively.
We have, in fact, had a very intensive discussion of this Bill and I am deeply indebted to my right hon., learned, and hon. Friends who sit beside me for the very able way in which they have dealt with the admittedly complex detail of the provisions which are included in the Bill.
I am grateful, too, for the several useful and constructive suggestions that have come from right hon. and hon. Members opposite and from my hon. Friends on this side of the House and there is no doubt that the Bill has emerged, as it should, from Committee a better Bill than when it started on its adventures.
Of course, I agree that some parts of the Bill are complex and even involved—necessarily so, I am afraid—and I respect the valiant attempts that have been made, with some success, to simplify and clarify. The pursuit of clarity in legislation is a noble one, but let us be fair: there is a vast history of legislation and interpretation behind almost everything we do in this House and I believe that the Parliamentary draftsmen do a magnificent job in putting our intentions in terms which, while capable of unambiguous interpretation on points of law, are, nevertheless, reasonably comprehensible to lesser mortals.
The objects of the Bill are clear-cut —the changes in the housing subsidies, the provision for overspill and town development, and the miscellaneous but useful amendments of the Housing Acts.
I do not propose to go over again ground that has been very fully covered in the earlier stages of the Bill in discussion of the new rates of housing subsidy. Broadly speaking, our object is to put housing finance on a more rational basis. We take the view that there must be some limit to the burden falling on the taxpayer and the ratepayer.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Hear, hear. The English taxpayer.

Mr. Maclay: We firmly believe that, given a fair rent policy, including rebate schemes, the subsidies provided in the Bill will enable most local authorities that are still faced with an urgent housing task to go ahead, at least until 1961, without financial difficulty. If we are right in this, there should be no diminution in the output of houses in these districts, and it remains our policy that the local authorities concerned should press on as quickly as possible with schemes designed to produce the additional accommodation that is needed.
But there may be, as I said on Second Reading, some local authorities that can show that they are faced with an urgent housing problem that they are not in a financial position to tackle unaided. In appropriate cases I am ready to consider asking the Scottish Special Housing Association, within the limits of its annual programme, to come to the help of these authorities by building a number of houses without any charge on the rates.
Whatever may be our differences on Part I of the Bill, the general principles of Part II are, I think, accepted by all those who are interested in the problem of overspill, although there may be different views as to the emphasis which is desirable on certain aspects. Of course, we do not suggest that Part II of the Bill will be the complete answer to Glasgow's problem, which will ultimately involve providing houses for 300,000 people outside the city. But it is our sincere view that the most useful way of augmenting the efforts of existing new towns at the present time is by enabling other local authorities to lend a hand.
On the experience we gain from the working of this Bill, plus East Kilbride and Cumbernauld, there will undoubtedly be lessons to be learned which will point the way in due course to the next stage of the operation.
Town development will obviously call for the closest co-operation between the exporting authority and the receiving authorities, and of course for a sharing of the financial burden. Hon. Members will remember the discussion in the Standing Committee about whether the Bill should lay down a minimum annual payment of £14 a house for ten years to be paid by exporting authorities. My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary then undertook to have further consultations with the local authorities. He has since done so. The meeting made clear that the county councils and the Convention of Royal Burghs would prefer the Bill to remain as drafted.
Glasgow Corporation would, naturally, have preferred to see the contribution laid down in the form of a maximum rather than a minimum payment, but they accepted that, in practice, no receiving authority could, in present circumstances, be brought to agree to a lower figure or a shorter period.
After full consideration of all the views expressed, I am satisfied that increased scope for negotiations would not result from leaving the amount or the period of the contribution out of the Bill and that the present Clause secures the maximum flexibility in practice as well as taking account of the Clyde Valley Committee's recommendations by providing a firm starting point for negotiations. To substitute a less definite provision might well only result in the prolongation of negotiations without any prospect of different results at the end of the day.
It should be borne in mind that, if circumstances change, the Secretary of State has power to reduce the £14 minimum. That would be by Order under Section 127 of the principal Act, as extended by Clause 9 (8) of the present Bill. This would enable a lower figure than £14 to be negotiated between exporting and receiving authorities for overspill agreements subsequently entered into.
I turn now to a subject on which there was considerable discussion in Committee and which we promised to examine with care, namely, the obvious need, if this whole operation is to be a success, for industry as well as housing in the receiving areas. Doubts were expressed as to whether existing arrangements plus those made possible by this Bill will do the

job. No one, on a subject of this kind, can be categorical, but I do feel that some of the views expressed have been excessively gloomy.
I would recall that the Joint Under-Secretary of State pointed out—and he had the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Pollok (Mr. George)—that industry is now becoming more accustomed to paying economic charges for factory space. The Distribution of Industry Act factory rents have moved up to current market level. Factors other than rents or amortisation terms, such as availability of labour, availability of power and services, attractive site, modern factory layout, accessibility of good houses for workers, are all of far greater importance in determining where industry will establish itself.
This was one of the main points discussed on Amendments considered in Committee, especially on an Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), and in the light of what was then said I have had consultations with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. I should not be in order, at this stage of the Bill, in recalling fully the reasons why we could not accept that Amendment, but what I can do is to indicate how we expect that industrial dispersal will take place as part of the whole overspill operation.
In what I am going to say I may repeat some of the things that have been said earlier, but I think it is desirable, in view of the importance of this subject, to bring them all together and to try to present a coherent idea of what we think should, may and will happen.
The first thing I would say, and it is very important, is that if, in any particular case, it appeared likely that the overspill operation might create conditions in any overspill reception area which satisfied the test already prescribed in Section 7 (2) of the Distribution of Industry Act, that there is likely to be a special danger of unemployment, then the President of the Board of Trade and I would be able to add such an area to the list of scheduled Development Areas under the Act of 1945. It might be said that some part of what the right hon. Gentleman wished to achieve already exists, because I assume that the right hon. Gentleman


would not have expected a reception area to be scheduled if population and industry were, in fact, moving together and in such a way as to raise no question of unemployment.
Obviously, I repeat again, we all agree that industrial dispersal must accompany the movement of Glasgow's population. What we are debating is whether this will happen. On all available evidence, bearing in mind what I said earlier, I believe that it will. I think it may help if I explain again what the present position is.
First, priority of consideration must clearly be given to those industrial firms whose premises will be displaced by the redevelopment operations and who will have to secure new sites and new buildings elsewhere. Such firms will receive compensation for the loss of their existing premises. They will, in practice, get the present market value of these premises, and compensation for disturbance. That comes from Part IV of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947, which prescribes existing use value. While redevelopment is still some way off, this, in practice, means the open market value in the kind of case arising here.

Mr. C. N. Thornton-Kemsley: My right hon. Friend will agree, will he not, that that is 1947 prices? It is a rather important qualification.

Mr. James McInnes: And payable by the local authority, not the Government.

Mr. Maclay: I think I had better proceed with developing this matter rather than allow myself to be drawn away into dealing with side issues. I am not quite certain whether my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) is right. I want to think over carefully what he said.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: It is quite right.

Mr. Maclay: If firms get early notice of the redevelopment proposals of the corporation and get their compensation early enough they will be put in a position to prepare in good time for their removal to a reception area or new town where housing is being provided for Glasgow overspill and where accommodation can be made available for their workers.

To help this process the Government have, as the House knows, authorised the corporation to spend up to £250,000 a year on the advance purchase of industrial premises which will be affected by the redevelopment, and where the firms concerned are proposing to move to an overspill reception area or new town. The Corporation of Glasgow will get an Exchequer grant of 50 per cent. on its annual charges on this expenditure for which it will borrow in the normal way.
How is all this expected to work? As redevelopment goes ahead in Glasgow there will be a steady flow of acquisition of industrial premises. Industry is inextricably mixed up with housing in the bad areas. Already, since the £250,000 offer was made in February, two of the largest firms in the Gorbals area, employing together over 600 workers, have proposed to the corporation that their premises should be purchased now to allow the firms to get ahead with their dispersal plans. A most important aspect of this policy is that the corporation, having purchased industrial premises in redevelopment areas in this way, will be able to control the premises until redevelopment takes place and prevent their reoccupation by other industrial undertakings. On being approached by firms in Glasgow redevelopment areas, the corporation will arrange discussion with them and with the Scottish Controller of the Board of Trade.
The Scottish Controller will have at his disposal all the information about sites, services and factory building costs in the new towns and in the local authority areas where Glasgow overspill housing is being planned. He will be in a position to recommend the firms to consider one or other of the areas and to discuss their requirements with the New Town Development Corporation or the local receiving authority.
When the firm has selected an area or a site it will either itself build with the compensation it gets for its old premises or with other capital procured from private sources, or it may ask the New Town Development Corporation or local receiving authority, as the case may be, to help it. The help which the Development Corporation or receiving authority can give may range from the offer of a factory site to the actual construction of the factory, either for leasing to the firm


or for disposal to it on amortisation terms over a period of years.
In debate in Committee some hon. Members expressed doubts whether the receiving authorities, particularly the smaller authorities, had the technical resources and know-how to carry out industrial development, which is so important to the success of the overspill operation. Reference was made to the possibility of the great experience of Scottish Industrial Estates, Ltd., which has such a fine record of achievement in this work, being made available in some form to the local receiving authorities for this work.
I have considered this suggestion most carefully with the President of the Board of Trade, who has a most sympathetic understanding of the twin problems of unemployment and overspill in the Glasgow area. With his agreement I am glad to say that the Board of Trade will be prepared to arrange in suitable cases for Scottish Industrial Estates, Ltd., to put its knowledge and experience at the service of receiving authorities. Scottish Industrial Estates' good offices in this respect will be available to authorities contemplating the use of their planning Act powers —

Mr. A. Woodburn: Will it be possible to offer the services of Scottish Industrial Estates to smaller authorities outside the Development Area?

Mr. Maclay: Yes. I think that I had better finish my full description of what will happen. Experience will be made available to receiving authorities outside the Development Areas subject to what I am going to say in the latter part of my speech.
Scottish Industrial Estates' good offices in this respect will be available to authorities contemplating the use of their planning Act powers to promote industrial development as part of their contribution to the relief of Glasgow's overspill problem with which Glasgow's unemployment problem is so closely linked. The arrangement will, I expect, be of particular value to the smaller authorities, who may feel the need for a guiding or helping hand in their initial ventures into what will be for most of them an entirely new field of development.
The House will understand that the part which Scottish Industrial Estates will be able to play in any particular case will depend on the scale and character of the industrial development required as well as on the circumstances of the receiving authority, and that any outlays incurred by Scottish Industrial Estates would have to be defrayed by the authority.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: Really.

Mr. McInnes: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean, by saying that the knowledge and experience of Scottish Industrial Estates will be available, that they will undertake to build the requisite industrial accommodation on behalf of small authorities?

Mr. Maclay: I must ask the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to read carefully what I have said, because at this stage I cannot go beyond that.

Mr. William Ross: On a point of order. Could you help us, Mr. Speaker, in the strange position we have got into? The Secretary of State has obviously been making what was intended to be a reply to an Amendment which was not called during the Report stage. Can we have any advice as to how far we should be allowed to go in the subsequent proceedings in debating what the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned?

Mr. Speaker: I did not gather that the right hon. Member was straying outside what is in the Bill. It is true that on Third Reading the debate is more narrowly confined than it is on any other stage. I thought that the Secretary of State was dealing with what is in the Bill. and with its effect. That is all right.

Mr. William Hannan: Further to that point of order. When hon. Members have been speaking on Third Reading the general rule has been, as I understood it, that we could speak only on what was in the Bill. This matter is certainly not in the Bill and now, on Third Reading, the Secretary of State has developed it for the past five minutes. Are we not entitled, Sir, to reply at some length to his points?

Mr. Speaker: I understood that the Secretary of State was explaining the effect of the Bill. He must not go outside what is in the Bill.

Mr. Maclay: What I was trying to do. Sir, within the rules of order for Third Reading, was to explain what will happen under the Bill, and adding a piece of information about facilities which do not require legislation but which must be available if we are to make the Measure effective, and which are the result of certain discussions I have had recently with the President of the Board of Trade. I feel, Sir, that this is strictly within the terms of what is in the Bill, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will not object to my trying to make as clear as possible what we are trying to do.

Mr. Ross: I want to be allowed to speak, too.

Mr. Maclay: That is not for me. If I may finish what I was saying on that matter, I will repeat carefully the last part.
I made it clear that any outlays incurred by Scottish Industrial Estates would have to be defrayed by the authority. We have heard discussed often the great problem of local authorities who have not undertaken factory building under the planning Acts. A strong point was made of this in many speeches. In discussion with the President of the Board of Trade I have established the position that the know-how and advice of Scottish Industrial Estates will be available.

Mr. T. Fraser: The right hon. Gentleman will agree that something was also said, and said with some force during the Committee stage, about the inability of the local authorities to finance this venture.

Mr. Maclay: I would be going outside the rules of order if I pursued that point.

Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman would be in order with me.

Mr. Speaker: I think I ought to say here that if the Secretary of State has developed this point about what will be the effect of the Bill, and that is what he is doing, any other hon. Member is entitled to refer to what he has said as showing either that it is not the effect of the Bill or that it is a bad effect or a very good effect.

Mr. Thomas Steele: The trouble is that it will have no effect.

Mr. Maclay: That is an expression of opinion with which I thoroughly disagree, but every hon. Member is entitled to his own opinion.
I believe that we can have effective work in the dispersal of industry under our proposals. I hope that hon. Members of all parties will do nothing to discourage what we are all trying so hard to achieve. It is possible for hon. Members to have views that we ought to do more or less or something else, but in this big effort we are all trying to make let us make the best of what we have got from the point of view of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
They will realise from what I have said that there is good reason to believe that what we all want to achieve will be achieved. There is one final point about Scottish Industrial Estates. I should make it clear that their main task will still be to cater for new industries coming into the Scottish Development Area to relieve unemployment, and that this must remain their primary and predominant function.

Sir James Henderson-Stewart: When my right hon. Friend says that the good offices of Scottish Industrial Estates will be made available, does he mean that if an authority asked them to do so, they would actually build the factories?

Mr. Maclay: My words were carefully chosen and I ask my hon. Friend not to press me to go further, because it might be to the disadvantage, in the long run, of what we are all so anxious to achieve.

Mr. T. Fraser: But when the Minister is making the first speech in the debate it is important that the House should know what he has said. His hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart) has just asked him what he said. Has he said that the factories will be built by Scottish Industrial Estates or by the local authority, who will merely be given some technical guidance by the former? I thought he implied that Scottish Industrial Estates would build the factories. In any case, he can surely give us the answer to the question. If he cannot, we shall have a debate in a vacuum and read his speech tomorrow.

Mr. Maclay: I have used carefully chosen words. They mean exactly what they say. The good offices of Scottish


Industrial Estates will be available to give such help as they can to those receiving authorities who ask for that help. If I am asked a straight question as to whether they will actually build the factories, my words do not cover that. My words say that their know-how will be made available, their advice will be made available. I cannot go further than that.
May I leave that point and come briefly to one other comment? Throughout the discussion there was a certain amount of comment on the powers of the Secretary of State, and hon. Members did me the honour of looking up a certain number of the speeches I made in years gone by on this subject. I am gratified by the care they took. My comment on that is that they will realise from the views I expressed earlier, which I still hold, that the powers of the Secretary of State in this Bill have been extremely carefully examined by me, and I am satisfied that they are really necessary.
In commending this Bill to the House, may I add that I know the first part of it is controversial? Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have properly argued it hard, but I believe they will recognise that we are sincere in our belief that its provisions are in the best interests of everyone. On the remainder of the Bill our aims are identical. Those of us who know Glasgow well are more than anxious to see the great problem of overcrowding solved, with all that must mean in terms of a healthier and better life for generations to come.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. A. Woodburn (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire): If the Secretary of State has not been convinced of the doubts which there are about the efficiency and worth of the Bill, I think the support that he has been getting from his hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) must now have put some doubts into his mind.

Mr. Nabarro: As the only English hon. Member present in the Chamber at the moment, perhaps I might point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the English taxpayers will have to find most of the money for the subsidies provided by the Bill, and, therefore, I am very concerned with what my right hon. Friend does.

Mr. Woodburn: That further illustrates how little the hon. Member for Kidderminster knows about the Bill.
The Secretary of State has made his second major speech—the first was on Second Reading—on what he himself has described as a most important Bill for Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman, knowing what he has said, and having heard the views of hon. Members in various parts of the House, must realise that he has not enlightened us very much about the Bill and that a great many questions still remain to be answered.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that his hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Craigton (Mr. J. N. Browne), has devoted much time and energy to the Bill and dealt with it in a splendid way. The hon. Gentleman always gave complete satisfaction to my hon. Friends when they wanted points elucidated, though sometimes he was embarrassed by legal help in this direction. On the whole, the hon. Gentleman bore the main brunt of the Bill.
Whether it was entirely necessary for the Secretary of State to leave all the responsibility to his hon. Friend, I do not know. It had certain disadvantages. People expect to get a decision from the "boss", and we gathered the impression that in this case the "boss" did not delegate any authority to his hon. Friend to listen to reason and to make concessions where that was desirable. Since the "chief" himself did not interfere after having delegated insufficient authority, the result appeared to us to be that all the reasonable arguments which were put forward by the Opposition and by Government supporters did not receive sufficient attention. It appeared that there was some stubbornness in adhering to the text of the Bill as originally drafted and that it would require almost dynamite to shift even the grammar of the Bill in the course of our debate.
We ought to pay testimony to the persistent efforts of my hon. Friends the Members for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) for the improvements that resulted. They were responsible for a large share of the work in connection with the Bill. As a result of their efforts, both the sense and the grammar of the Bill have been considerably improved


against the resistance of the Government. I am sorry to say that some of their more fundamental proposals were also resisted by the Government.
The Bill is really three Bills. The first part is designed to stimulate or compel local authorities to raise rents or rates. Judging by the example of Dumfries, I am afraid that the Government will be entirely successful in their purpose in that respect. The second is concerned with town development, and the third with some miscellaneous items.
The policy of the Government has, almost since its inception, been to save the Surtax payers and to pare away Government responsibility for assisting local authorities. There has been a steady transfer from the Government to the shoulders of ratepayers and rent payers of the responsibility for running local affairs.
There is not much more to be said about the first part of the Bill. All that needs to be said is that we are still against it. Nothing that we have been able to say has influenced the Government, nor do I see any hope of the Government changing their view. The Government ought to be influenced a little by the results of the South Edinburgh by-election. I first fought South Edinburgh in 1929, and on that occasion I just skimmed home and saved my deposit by 50 votes. Today, the Government hold the constituency with a minority vote. I remember that Sir Samuel Chapman said that it was the safest Tory seat in Britain.

Mr. Speaker: A question was put to me by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) as to what was relevant to the Third Reading of the Bill, and I stated my opinion as well as I could in answer to that question. However, I am perfectly certain that I have seen nothing in the Bill which has any reference to the South Edinburgh by-election.

Mr. Woodburn: In view of the result of the by-election, Mr. Speaker, I was just wondering why the Secretary of State moved the Third Reading of the Bill. There seems to be a suspicion that if the decision about the Bruntsfield Hospital had been made before the by-election, the result would have been complete defeat for the Government.
The second part of the Bill purports to be a constructive contribution to the

solution of the problem of Glasgow's overspill. We are in wholehearted agreement with that intention, but we are very doubtful about the efficacy of the means proposed by the Government. The Bill has major defects which we fear will frustrate the declared intentions of the Government. Glasgow's overspill is treated as a Glasgow domestic problem, and the Government begin by offering their services as "honest brokers" to facilitate agreements with receiving authorities.
The Bill empowers local authorities to do much to help, but then the Government proceed, first, to make quite sure that they will not be involved in helping financially. The steps which the Government have taken in the Bill to make sure that they will on no account be asked for any money probably surpass anything in any previous legislation.
Secondly, the Government have inserted so many safeguards, provisos and restrictions that local authorities will he reluctant to make agreements.
Thirdly, once an agreement is made, the local authority is then bound hand and foot in such a way that it is threatened even with prison if it slips up in any of the provisions. We cannot believe that the best way to get friendly agreement is to adopt this threatening attitude and provide penalties for default. The whole Bill reeks of Chicago forms of "friendly" persuasion, by putting a gun in one's back —"nice and friendly" as used to be said.
The right hon. Gentleman came to the kernel of his speech and it was clear that his conscience very greatly troubled him over the results of his efforts to give consideration to an Amendment of mine, which he had promised to do. I am sorry to say that he still misrepresents or misunderstands it. The Amendment did not suggest in any way, nor was the suggestion ever made, that areas should be described as Development Areas in a wholesale fashion. What was suggested—this bears on the Bill's defect—was that for purposes outside the existing Development Areas the Government should at least take the necessary power in case the right hon. Gentleman's optimistic dreams come to nothing. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he believes that this or that will happen and that firms will move out. Suppose they do


not. If they do not, the Bill comes to an end.
Is there any reason why East Fife—I cannot understand the position of the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart) in this matter—should not receive the same assistance for helping Glasgow as Kilmarnock and other development Areas receive? Is there any reason why Stirlingshire should not have that help? That was all that was proposed. if that is necessary to facilitate the work of the Bill, the Government should take these powers.
The right hon. Gentleman says "if unemployment develops". Are we to look forward to unemployment? I hope that the present Government will not last long enough for that. I should like hon. Members to look at the Conservative mind in this matter. It carries my memory back to before, the war when children were given boots only if they were suffering malnutrition.

Mr. Nabarro: That is a Harold Wilson story.

Mr. Woodburn: That was Conservative policy before the war. To be given boots, children had to be suffering from malnutrition. In the same way, nothing is to be done to help the Bill to operate in non-Development Areas. Its operation will be helped only in areas suffering from unemployment and malnutrition. That is a fantastic way of going about a great constructive dream of spreading the population of Scotland outside Glasgow.
If 300,000 people are to be moved into Lanarkshire because that is a Development Area, the problem will only be transferred from Glasgow to Lanarkshire. That is the wrong way to set about it. Those 300,000 should be spread further over Scotland, in accordance with the recommendations of the Cairncross Report and the Scottish Council for the Development of Industry. I know that at this stage of the Bill there is not much hope of influencing the Government. We have met resistance on every fundamental proposal about this part of the Bill and the Secretary of State cannot deny that every Amendment we have tabled has been put down with a view to helping this part of the Bill to work.
We are satisfied that the Government have not taken all the means necessary

to make the Bill work. We still believe that it is likely that more new towns will have to be built. If the Bill is to make any contribution to a solution of the problem, the Government must take powers so that, if the Secretary of State's hopes prove fruitless, something can be done for areas outside Development Areas which are likely to receive the overspill population.

Mr. James Stuart: Would the right hon. Gentleman be in favour of declaring the whole of Scotland a Development Area, because it seems to me that we would then get back to where we were before we started?

Mr. Woodburn: I was very careful, as the right hon. Gentleman may remember, to stress that the Government would not have to declare even a receiving town a Development Area, but should have been able to take a small area where a factory was to be built. It was for that reason that we suggested that the powers were necessary. If the powers had proved to be unnecessary, they would never have been used, but they would have been in reserve. All that the Secretary of State has done is refuse reserve powers to come in at the last minute.
The Government have handled the problem badly. They have handled the Bill badly because they have not allowed the Committee work to be done constructively and to meet with a reasonable reception. The legal authorities and the Secretary of State himself have stubbornly refused to accept reasonable suggestions. I am sorry to say that sometimes there has even been bad temper, which did not make for good will in the Committee.
The Government have been unimaginative in their whole attitude to constructive Amendments. The passage of the Bill is not a part of the Scottish history of Parliament in which any of us can feel any pride. We must register our disappointment at the Government's attitude and failure to tackle the problem in the imaginative way in which it should have been handled.

4.23 p.m.

Sir James Henderson-Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) persisted in suggesting that the Amendment to which he referred did


not propose to designate certain areas as Development Areas. I do not want to make too much play with words, but, in fact, the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment contained the proposal
 to designate … as a development area …
He cannot get out of that. That was his Amendment.

Mr. Woodburn: On a point of order. I wish the hon. Member would read what the Amendment says. It was giving the Secretary of State and the President of the Board of Trade power to designate Development Areas in certain conditions and if the other purposes of the Bill were to fail. It did not designate anything at all. No Bill can do that.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman appears to be complaining about an Amendment not being accepted. Consequently, he must, presumably, be dealing with a matter which is not in the Bill.

Sir J. Henderson-Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman confirmed what I said. His proposal was that the Secretary of State should be given power
to designate … as a development area".
That would have been a wrong policy but since you, Mr. Speaker, have pointed out that it would not be in order to develop that theme, much as I should like to do so, I will leave the matter there.
In his admirable speech, the Secretary of State indicated what would be the manner in which the policy would be implemented. He said that the essence of the whole plan was to ensure that industry moved out with the population, or, at least, that industry followed population into the new areas. Without doubt, we are all agreed that a great movement of population in Scotland, which is inevitable over the next five, ten or fifteen years, must be accompanied by a deployment, development and strengthening of industry.
In Committee, all our discussions on Part II of the Bill revolved around the question of how that was to be done. The Secretary of State has today indicated how he visualises that operation will be carried through. He said that the receiving areas—that is, the areas into which the population, by agreement, will move —may turn to and receive the good offices of Scottish Industrial Estates Limited. I

gather that that did not include the building of factories, but that it was confined to the offer of the company's experience and knowledge.
That organisation is one of the most remarkable which Scotland has ever produced. It has done magnificent work and the gentlemen who have controlled it in recent years deserve our very highest praise. I would pick out one, the managing director, Mr. W. C. Kirkwood, who has served Scotland altogether admirably. However, with great respect to my right hon. Friend, I do not think that merely to put the good offices of this body at the disposal of those authorities will be adequate.
I venture to suggest another way which might be a better means of implementing this policy. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirling-shire that the receiving authorities must include many more than those in the immediate environs of Glasgow. I entirely agree that Fife and Stirling and others even further away should receive the benefit of the Bill. But those authorities will need not only technical advice, but some sort of financial aid—as I shall explain in a moment—and a body to do the building. The view of the Opposition is that the Government should provide the financial aid. I do not take that view and I think that if the Opposition were in power they would not take that view, either.
The whole country realises that, more and more, stage by stage, we have to make our various industries self-supporting. Each section must stand on its own feet. Incoming industrialists must, therefore, be discouraged from thinking that they have merely to turn to the State and ask it to provide them with cheaper factories. That is the wrong policy from a national point of view at this time, and it has been proved wrong by experience. Figures show that in the last three or four years more factories in Scotland, and still more south of the Border, are paying for their extensions, and entirely out of their own funds.
In nearly every case the difficulty is to find the capital to build new factories. People are always ready to pay a rent, and many of them are ready to enter into an amortisation arrangement. In my experience, the payment of an economic rent has not hindered the setting up of


companies in Scotland. What has hindered a good many, and what hinders them today, is the difficulty of providing all the capital to build the new factories. That is the crux of the problem.
Where is that capital to come from? How can we best provide it? I do not think that the Development Area procedure will help. I do not think that we should turn to the Government in this case. In the earlier debates on the Bill it was suggested that some local authorities might provide the capital to build the factories, and we know that one or two have already done so in the West Highlands, but they are only tiny schemes. The Bill also provides for considerable Government grants to local authorities for the buying and servicing of land. Local authorities will be better off in this respect than they were before, but I do not think that they will be well enough off to enter into schemes for building factories unless we take a further step.
We need to establish a body in Scotland to operate outside the Development Areas, in the same way as Scottish Industrial Estates Limited has been working within them. In Committee upstairs, referring to this matter, I used the words "Scottish Special Housing Association" when I meant to refer to Scottish Industrial Estates Limited. We must look fairly far ahead, and I am looking five or ten years ahead, when we shall need a skilled and experienced organisation with the appliances, strength and breadth to establish factories all over Scotland, including the Highlands.
I therefore suggest that we should aim at establishing an organisation on the lines of Scottish Industrial Estates Limited —not a Government concern—to operate outside the Development Areas. How could that body be established? I suggest that it should consist of a combination of banking firms, insurance companies, or building societies. I notice that the working party dealing with Midlothian the other day made a suggestion somewhat upon those lines, and that a plan roughly of that nature was suggested by the Scottish Council.
On the financial side, the body should be composed of already established non-Governmental financial houses. With such an organisation we could gather round it skilled builders, architects, managers and staff.

Mr. E. G. Willis: On a point of order. Prior to your taking the Chair, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, we were warned by Mr. Speaker that we must discuss only what was in the Bill, and the effects of the Bill. With respect, I suggest that what we are listening to now has very little to do with the Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I was listening to the hon. Member with some concern. I was not quite sure how to relate his remarks to the contents of the Bill.

Sir J. Henderson-Stewart: I was trying to do what the Secretary of State did a little earlier; I was trying to visualise how the Bill would work. Unless, somehow or other, we create a body of the kind that I am describing, I suggest that it will not work. I want Part II to work; I want industry to spread all over Scotland, but unless we create a non-Governmental body of the kind that I have been describing it simply will not operate.

Mr. T. Fraser: How are we Members of the House of Commons to create this body? The hon. Member is merely suggesting that the Government might be helped out of a difficulty by private persons in Scotland taking certain action. He knows perfectly well that this idea has been canvassed and that it has been repudiated. He must not look to that argument as a means of solving the problem posed by the Government.

Sir J. Henderson-Stewart: First, it has not been tried, secondly, it has not been repudiated and, thirdly, it is not meant to get the Government out of any difficulty. This is the House of Commons, and some of our words go out to local authorities. This is a matter for the great Scottish local authorities, together with the finance houses. The Secretary of State has some influence with all these great bodies. I suggest that Scotland can provide for this need in its own way.

Mr. Hannan: On a point of order. I must follow up the point of order made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). Is not the hon. Member indirectly discussing Amendments which have already been discussed in Committee? The proposal to which he is now referring is not in the Bill. Is he not, therefore, out of order?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that the hon. Member has gone far beyond the contents of the Bill.

Sir J. Henderson-Stewart: If the House will bear with me, it may well be that in five years' time it will find that this organisation has been created out of necessity—and I am only looking ahead a little way, as it is the duty of hon. Members to do if they are to give their country the service they ought. If my suggestion were carried out there would be an inducement to local authorities to act, and they would receive some assistance in order to enable them to play their part in development schemes under Part II. The inroduction of an organisation of that kind—non-Governmental, but strong and powerful, and with all the influence of Scotland behind it—might achieve this end.
In Part II of the Bill we have opened the door to a very great and new advance in the development of Scotland's economy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] It is no use hon. Members opposite saying "Oh"; there is a very great deal that is new here. I support my right hon. Friend in the appeal that he made for unity in this matter. If, as Scottish Members, we can together, by our words, inspire all our Scottish authorities, finance houses and public men to play their proper part, we can begin this great movement of population and industry which will be of such vital concern to our country in the days ahead.

4.40 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: I am sure that by the speeches of the Secretary of State and of the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart) we on this side are no more convinced that the provisions of the Bill are good for Scotland than we have been during the whole of the time that the Bill has been before us.
The right hon. Gentleman has said today that the first part of the Bill is an attempt to put housing finance on a more rational basis. In his Second Reading speech, he said:
The Government's approach is based on two quite simple principles; first, that subsidies should not be given to those who do not need them; and, secondly, that no one in genuine need of a house should be asked to pay more rent than he can reasonably afford."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT 18th February, 1957; Vol. 565, c. 43.]

I want to take up those two points. First, so long as we have this Government and the high rate of interest we shall never be able to get our rational basis for housing finance for local authorities in Scotland. Secondly, does not the Secretary of State realise quite clearly—if he really wants to ensure that no one is denied a good house, a house provided by the local authorities—that it will he quite impossible, now that he has cut these subsidies, for local authorities, even with a rent rebate scheme, to ensure that some of their people will be able to get these houses without putting an intolerable burden on the rest of the council house tenants?
I have a particular objection to the cutting of the subsidy from an average of £42 to £24. I represent a constituency where mining has been carried on for generations. In the village of Harthill, not a single house for general needs has been built since before the Second World War because of difficulties in finding a site on which to build houses. The Lanarkshire County Council has now been able to start to build houses, but I think that it will find it very difficult because of the provisions of the Bill.
I have an area which is much worse than that. It is a huge area, covering the western part of my constituency—an area that the Secretary of State may know, as it is not very far from his own constituency. It covers, Stepps, Auchinloch, Chryston, Annathill, Glenboig and Gartcosh—a very big proportion of my constituency. There, the provision of houses has been held up for a number of years either because of subsidence caused by the undermining experienced in that area, or because the National Coal Board has still to win coal from that area. The local authorities now have their site and have started to prepare to build houses but, because of these exceptional difficulties—and there must be like difficulties in other constituencies—they will be very badly hit by the cut in the subsidies.
Both on Second Reading and again today the right hon. Gentleman has said that if local authorities could prove any special hardships or difficulties he would be willing to consider another rate of subsidy, and it is mainly because of that that I now ask him this question. In the sort of position I have just described,


affecting, as it does, a large part of my constituency—and one which will affect the financial arrangements of the Lanarkshire County Council—will the county council be able to get a rate of subsidy higher than the £24? I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will be able to answer that question. Dealing with the whole question of the cutting of subsidies, the Secretary of State told us that in three or four years' time it would result in a net rent of £39. I doubt that very much indeed, particularly when we have the example of Dumfriesshire.
The hon. Member for Fife, East said that Part II of the Bill, that dealing with overspill, gave us a chance of a great new advance. I do not know whether he has read Part II, or if he really knows its provisions, but it seems to me that those provisions give little chance at all for Glasgow's overspill problem in particular to be met adequately; to be met, not only by proper housing for the people, but by industry in the vicinity of that housing.
The Secretary of State has said today that among the things that attract indusrialists to a particular area, availability of labour is one. In my constituency, I have found that the greatest attraction to any industrialist is the availability of factory space. When the hon. Member for Fife, East was Joint Under-Secretary of State I made this case to him time and time again, and time and time again he rather pooh-poohed the idea. Certainly, neither he nor his Government did anything.
Nevertheless, when a factory became vacant in my constituency, my continued plea for advance factories was proved to be the correct way of really atracting industrialists to that area. Just as it then was, so it remains the case today that the greatest attraction for any industrialist in the areas where we want new industry is the availability of factory space.
Today, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that he was making a great concession when he said that after his talks with the President of the Board of Trade there would, if it were found necessary to meet this problem of Glasgow's overspill, be other scheduled Development Areas. If the Government mean to do no more for any new scheduled Development Area than they

have done for some of those areas that have been scheduled for a long time it certainly will not help Glasgow's overspill.

Mr. Maclay: I think that the hon. Lady may have misunderstood something that I said. Did she think that I said that there would be new scheduled areas? My reference to that was simply in relation to the terms of the Distribution of Industry Act. That Act can be employed if there are signs of unemployment.

Miss Herbison: That is exactly the point with which I was dealing.
Again, the right hon. Gentleman thought it was a great announcement to make today that Scottish Industrial Estates would be prepared to give help—technical help, I understand—to local authorities, and that the local authorities would have to pay the expense of any technical help that they got. The fact is that already local authorities could, if they wished, build factories. We did not need an announcement like that.
The Lanarkshire County Council could always build factories, shops and the like, and it has been as keen as I in getting industry into those areas. It was not the lack of any technical assistance that prevented it from building factories. The real lack was lack of finance, and the right hon. Gentleman's statement does not deal with that problem of lack of finance in Lanarkshire or in any other area.
The matter has been raised in this House. Scottish Industrial Estates were just as disappointed as I was and other hon. Members were when the Government refused to build advance factories, but they said, "We will do our best", so they approached finance houses, about which we have heard, and the local authority. They found that they could not get support, for different reasons, from either of them. Lord Polwarth had to drop the idea altogether.
It is wrong to try to put on the shoulders of local authorities or of the finance houses this important matter of the well-being of the Scottish people, the Secretary of State for Scotland and other Ministers ought to accept it as their own responsibility. It is undoubtedly the responsibility of the Secretary of State to see that the overspill problem of Glasgow is dealt with


adequately and that there is industry for the people wherever they go so that there shall be no unemployment.
My great criticism of Part II of the Bill is that it goes no way at all to meet these needs. What a wonderful opportunity the Government had to plan Glasgow and the West of Scotland not only to ease the overspill problem, but to bring hope to many areas in the West of Scotland that may in the future be derelict. What a saving of public money it would have meant in the long run if the Government had really decided to plan. They could have dealt with these problems and could have ensured that all the public and private money that is invested in these dying areas of Lanarkshire would be saved.
The Government have done just nothing at all to meet even the problem of Glasgow's overspill or the problems of areas like mine that would be delighted to have Glasgow people in their midst. We would not only give them a welcome, but communities to live in that are considered very fine. To not only Part I but Part II do I take the greatest objection, and I shall be very glad to go with my right hon. and hon. Friends into the Division Lobby against the Bill tonight.

4.53 p.m.

Mr. C. N. Thornton-Kemsley: Nothing that has been said in the rather protracted earlier stages of the Bill—the Second Reading, the long Committee stage, reconsideration and Report—or, indeed, in the early part of the debate this evening, has been more true than the words spoken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his opening speech on Second Reading some months ago. He then said that the major problem that was coming to dominate the Scottish scene was the need to disperse at least 300,000 people and their jobs from Glasgow.
If, in her speech today, the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) had said that there was very little chance of Part II of the Bill solving the immense problem which faces Glasgow, and, indeed, the whole of Scotland, I would certainly have agreed with her, but she went further than that and said, "The Government are doing nothing to solve the problem". There, I must break a lance with her in disagreement. To solve the problem by providing for overspill

in expanded towns is not enough. The late Sir Patrick Abercrombie, who did so much to advise us about the Clyde Valley scheme, advised that Glasgow should be encircled with at least four new towns. We already have East Kilbride and Cumbernauld. We still need two more.
I hope that the new town movement in Scotland will not stop with East Kilbride, Glenrothes and Cumbernauld. The real solution to the overspill problem lies in the creation of at least two more new towns. There should be an early decision to build these new towns as the major solution of the problem to which my right hon. Friend referred. I cannot develop that point at any length in this Third Reading debate.
I agree wholeheartedly with those who who have congratulated the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland on the way he largely conducted the Committee stage of the Bill. He did it with great patience and the practical knowledge which he has developed over the time that he has been at the Scottish Office. He reminded the Committee that the target was what he described as a "ten-year plan" to build 50,000 new houses. I had better say "dwellings", because they include flats. There will be 15,000 within the boundaries of Glasgow, 15,000 in the overspill areas and 20,000 in the new towns, spread over the ten years and providing accommodation for about 170,000 people. Those are the figures which the Joint Under-Secretary gave, and that is the target.
That is the plan for rehousing 120,000 persons outwith Glasgow in the next ten years. whereas the problem is, as the Secretary of State reminded the House this afternoon, to rehouse 300,000 persons outwith Glasgow. We have not yet measured up to the problem that faces us. It cannot be done without more new towns. I am extremely grateful for Part II of the Bill—many of us have pressed for it for a very long time—but the need is still there to press for the full implementation of the work of that great practical visionary the late Sir Patrick Abercrombie, whose passing, a week or two ago, is such a great loss to the country.
The success of Part II depends almost entirely on the attitude of the towns which will be the reception authorities.


Those smaller authorities are being asked to take appreciable risks in the expansion of their boundaries. What can they expect out of town development? Unless they are to get something out of it, it is perfectly true—as many hon. Members said in Committee—that they will not do this work. It is no good talking optimistically about the Bill being a success unless there is incentive and vision and a willingness on the part of the smaller towns to accept overspill population under town development schemes.
Let us look, first, at the tangible things they can expect if they go in for schemes of this kind. They can expect the overspill subsidy of £42 a year for sixty years on all the houses they erect to rehouse the population of Glasgow under a scheme of this kind. In passing, I should point out that that is a great advance over the English arrangement. In England and Wales, the subsidy is only £24 a house, plus £8 for a period of ten years if the move is in support of a transfer of industry.
Secondly, they will receive at least £14 a year for a minimum of ten years from the exporting authority. In England and Wales the plan is not so good because they have legislated only for a minimum of £8 a year from the exporting authority for ten years.
Thirdly, during the early years—one is not quite sure what that term means, though it has been suggested that it may mean five years—they can expect to receive a Government contribution towards the cost of land acquisition, site preparation, water and sewerage schemes. All that early expense I sometimes think of as pump-priming which is necessary before one can go in for large-scale land developments of this kind.
The advantage of our arrangements in Scotland under this Bill is that the Government contribution will be based upon the effect of such schemes on local revenues. The intention, I understand, is that there shall be a Government grant of 75 per cent. of the deficiency in the local authority's income and expenditure account as a result of a development scheme. Moreover, the exporting authority, if it wishes, is authorised to contribute towards the balance of 25 per cent. of that expenditure.
That scheme is very much better than the one in England and Wales because

it is based on an actual deficiency—I almost said an actuarial deficiency—between the local authority's income and expenditure account, whereas in England and Wales power to make a grant of this kind is discretionary and, in general, the grants are limited to 50 per cent. of the cost of the work.
Fourthly, a receiving authority can expect the Scottish Special Housing Association to come in and build houses. That is extremely important. It may well make a great difference to local authorities of small towns in deciding whether they can go in for town development when they know that the Association, which was formed as a kind of commando force to go to areas where houses are badly wanted and build them quickly, can come in and that the resources of that organisation are at their disposal.
Those are direct incentives, pecuniary incentives, to go in for these schemes, but indirectly, authorities will get more out of the provision than that. It is always very difficult to talk about intangibles, but, certainly, they will get a larger population and often a larger population is an advantage to a country town. It is certainly an advantage to a decaying country town. It brings new life to it, it brings hope of better services and it brings the certainty of greater variety in retail trade. It gives a greater chance for multiples such as Woolworth's and shops which offer great value to come to those places. It gives enhanced status to the local authority and I think it will be worth having that.
It is sometimes suggested that the main deterrent to agreements for town development—I am talking now of the experience in England and Wales, because that is the only experience we have to go on—is the fear of small authorities that acceptance of such schemes will involve increases in local rates out of all proportion to the benefits they hope to get. I think that is true as a generality and very likely it has been true in some cases, but there is another factor to consider. That was brought to the attention of the former Minister for Housing and Local Government by Lieut.-General Sir Humfrey Gale, whom I have mentioned more than once in Committee on this Bill.
The former Minister for Housing and Local Government, the present Minister of Defence, did a very wise thing in England and Wales when he found that


schemes for town development there were hanging fire. In fact, they were not developing and nothing was happening about them. The right hon. Gentleman asked the Chairman of Basildon New Town, Sir Humfrey Gale, whether he would act as his personal liaison officer with the towns which might be expected to receive some of London's surplus population and the L.C.C. Sir Humfrey Gale went to many of those towns and reported to the Minister.
One of the things he said was that he thought the inability of exporting authorities to work out in detail a scheme financially attractive to receiving authorities was because receiving authorities—which, generally, were small authorities, urban districts and small boroughs—had not the necessary staff. They had not the technical facilities nor the time to embark on the necessary investigation which such schemes would require and, at the same time, to go on with the ever-increasing amount of day-to-clay administration which faces all local authorities.
I do not want that to happen in Scotland. In Committee, I suggested that it might be wise for the Government to consider the appointment of someone like Sir Humfrey Gale as liaison officer for the possible reception areas in Scotland. It might be that my right hon. Friend has the facilities in the Department for doing that. I think it necessary that some initiative should be taken by the Department, after careful survey has been made of the whole of Scotland, to see that someone goes to authorities which, on the face of it, seem likely to be able to receive some of the surplus population of Glasgow and examines the position with them.
We want rather more than that. We want a small team, probably formed of experts from the Department of Health, which would be prepared to go to the offices of local authorities considering such schemes and work out with them the potential advantages of their becoming receiving authorities. It may well be worth seconding someone from the Department to undertake that work of going round, advising, helping and encouraging the reception authorities.
Once a local authority has decided that it will enter into a scheme, and once a scheme has been undertaken, it seems

highly desirable that the receiving authority should draw up a master plan for the expansion of the town. I cannot conceive that any master plan of that kind will not involve amendment of the development plan, because the development plan envisages a small town in the country, but when it is to be made into a rather big town we are faced with the fact that we shall have to amend the development plan, and I believe that in many cases it will be very necessary to remodel the town centre.

Mr. McInnes: I am attracted by the hon. Gentleman's proposition of a liaison team between exporting and receiving authorities. Does he suggest that such a team with its technical and other skills should render its services free? We heard the Minister make a statement today that councils will have to pay the Scottish Industrial Estates for their experience and knowledge. Would the hon. Gentleman suggest that it should be free and provided by the Government?

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: When I spoke about an expert like Sir Humfrey Gale, I envisaged that he would be someone who would be remunerated for the time he put in. I then went further and suggested a team of two or three seconded for that work from the Department of Health. The members of the team would receive, of course, their normal remuneration as civil servants, but whether the local authority should contribute some part of that cost to the Department I would not know. That would be a detail which would have to be worked out by the Department and the local authority concerned. Certainly I had not envisaged that a local authority would be required to contribute in cash for the advisory help that could be given.
I would go further. I am not going to talk in any detail, but I hope that when a master plan is drawn up for the new areas the towns which are to be developed, the planners will have a good look at the town centres because I believe that a town centre reflects the personality of the town. If it is spacious, gracious and harmonious, I think that the citizens will take a pride in it. Conversely, if it is cramped and badly designed, the town itself is unlikely to have character.
I believe that when we are replanning our town centres—I dare say that it will


come strangely from someone on these benches to say this—it is worth while taking compulsory powers. If we do that and acquire as much as we can of the town centre which is to be replanned, we shall find that we shall receive worthwhile returns from the rateable values of shops when the town centres are rebuilt.
It is highly important that every inducement possible should be given to local authorities undertaking town development schemes. One of the inducements should be that they should plan boldly and not hesitate to use compulsory powers in order to take advantage of rising commercial values when they have an increased population and recoup themselves in that way by the higher rateable value on commercial premises and the higher rents of commercial premises on land which they will then own themselves, just as the new towns own the land. In that way there should be a great inducement to go on with the scheme.
When I say "plan boldly", I do not only mean the new areas themselves must be planned boldly but that the whole concept of the town development must be planned with vision and looking tar beyond the Clyde Valley regional area. The scheme will fail if we take the population out of Glasgow and put it down in Lanarkshire, Ayrshire and Renfrew-shire. I am quite certain that we have to go beyond that. I repeat what I said in Committee, that I hope we shad not rule out some of the Highland towns like Invergordon. Dispersal has to be planned boldly and people have to look widely over the whole of Scotland not ruling out anywhere until it is found that for some reason, such as transport and cost of freight, a town must be ruled out. I would look very widely because we have such a tremendous problem to face.
There is one problem which is not solved by the Bill, and for that reason I cannot do more than refer to it, although my right hon. Friend referred to it in his speech this afternoon, and That is the problem of the factory in Glasgow, for instance, which is to be vacated by the industry which is moving out to a newly developed town, an expanding town. I am sure that we were all glad to hear the announcement in Committee, repeated again by my right non. Friend this afternoon, that £250,000 is to be placed at Glasgow's disposal and to

be subject to a 50 per cent. Exchequer grant for the acquisition of factories vacated by industries which have been moved out in pursuance of town development schemes. It is absolutely vital that these factories should be taken over and closed down. It is no good moving people out if other people are to be tenants of the factories vacated. This sum of £250,000 should be of very material assistance.
I would express one regret. So far I have given praise because I am certainly most grateful for the provisions of Part II of the Bill. Now I must say something which I am not happy about and which is contained in Part I. I am not happy about the provisions of Clause 3 concerning higher subsidies for high flats, where the height is to be at least eight storeys.

Mr. Ross: Six storeys.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: The additional subsidy to be given is, I understand, two-thirds of the additional cost over the cost of building and site development on ordinary houses. The flat with a lift, that is to say a flat six or eight storeys or more high, costs £1,000 a unit more than a house.
The extra Exchequer subsidy in such a case works out at £36 a year. The House will remember that under Part II of the Bill we propose to enable the exporting authority, Glasgow, to pay a subsidy of at least £14 a year in respect of each house which has been or will be provided under a town development scheme. I think that it is of very doubtful wisdom to offer a greater inducement for Glasgow to choose a form of housing which costs £1,000 a dwelling more and which, in my view at any rate, is less desirable socially.
I realise that building high flats can be justified in some cases. In many cases, I admit, they meet a local demand. Some people like living in high flats. These flats certainly reduce the cost and the wear and tear of long journeys between the place of work and the place of dwelling. It is frequently true, a fact which one must face with great reluctance, that there simply is not the land available within the boundaries of the city for lower density development.
Despite all these facts, however, building high flats cannot be justified on


the ground sometimes put forward that it is uneconomic to use good agricultural land. The cost of saving agricultural land in this way is out of all proportion. If hon. Members work it out in pounds, shillings and pence they will see that it is far cheaper to reclaim marginal agricultural land than to go in for large-scale building of high flats in this way.
It is an arithmetical fact that even on very expensive land it is more costly per unit to build flats at high densities than to build houses at a lower density, and very large sums can be saved by reducing the number of dwellings replaced on the spot and increasing the amount of dispersal to new and expanding towns.
Having said that, let me repeat that I welcome the Bill. I am very glad that we are sending it on its way tonight with a welcome, certainly for Part II, from all parts of the House.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I think that we have already heard more from the Government back benches in the debate on Third Reading than in all the debates we had on the Bill in Committee. I must compliment the hon. Member for North Angus (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) upon making a speech which would have been much more relevant—particularly the latter part of his speech, in relation to multi-storey flats—when we were debating the Amendments on the relevant Clauses. On that occasion, he never said a word.
The hon. Member gave a modified welcome to Part II—or, rather, it is a farewell at this stage, not a welcome. May I ask him some questions about Part II? Is he satisfied that within Part II as we have left it there is that bold planning which he demanded? Is there any indication of that vision which he wanted to see? Is he satisfied that the agency under which all this overspill and town development is to be carried out is adequately provided for in the Bill? I am sure that if he answered those questions frankly his remarks, even in relation to Part II, would be considerably modified.
We should note that in his speech today the Secretary of State dealt mainly with Part II and that other speeches from the other side of the House have dealt

mainly with Part II. What about Part I? It cuts the housing subsidies for houses to be built by local authorities in Scotland to £24 per house, and the size of the house does not matter. When we remember that at present the subsidy is £42 5s. for a four-apartment house, we realise exactly what Part I of the Bill will mean in respect of the rents of houses still to be built.
In judging whether we should give the Bill a Third Reading, we must remember what my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) said—that this is not one Bill. I disagree with my right hon. Friend in one respect, however, because I think it is four Bills. It is a housing subsidies Bill, contained in Part I; it is a town development Bill, contained in Part II, for which we had two separate Bills relating to England; it is a Bill relating to compensation in respect of unfit houses in clearance areas, contained in Part III, for which there was a separate Bill for England; and it is a Bill relating to miscellaneous Amendments to the provisions of the 1950 Bill, contained in Part IV. We thus have four Bills. Indeed, we have complained about the way we have been treated in Committee and on Report.
In my opinion, Part I is tragically mean and morally unjustifiable. Hitherto vie have related what was done in respect of housing subsidies to the effect which this would have on the housing problem of Scotland. The Scottish housing problem remains. Hundreds of thousands of people are living in homes in which happiness and health are frustrated and in which in many cases even morality becomes difficult. That is a comment from the Church and Nation Report of the Church of Scotland last year. The phrases are not my own.
In trying to solve that problem, since 1952 local authorities have been hampered by the Government's financial policy. We boggle at the present financial difficulties, but they arise from the fact that interest rates for local authorities are such that it becomes more and more difficult for them to build houses and to let them at reasonable rents.
The Bill is the Government's solution. What does it do? Instead of meeting the local authorities' financial requirements, it further cuts the subsidy and exaggerates their financial difficulties. The


Government tell local authorities to raise their rents. We have at least twice heard them told by the Joint Under-Secretary, "Double the rents". The same comment applies not only to local authority houses but also to those of the Scottish Special Housing Association. When we dealt with the Bill on Report it was again repeated by the Joint Under-Secretary of State. He could not tell us what the housing rent policy of the Scottish Special Housing Association would be but we know that it will mean an increase in rents. Far from helping to solve the problem, the Government have exaggerated local authorities' difficulties. It is no longer the need of Scottish housing which matters it is the need to cut Government expenditure.
As far as I can see, Clause 2 and the Bill's financial provisions will save at most £400,000 a year. It is only a few months ago that the Chancellor of the Exchequer relieved the Surtax payers by no less than £34 million, a sum which could have covered this saving on Scottish housing for the next century. The tax relief given to the Surtax payer for one year could have met what is being saved under the Bill for the next hundred years. How can we morally justify that in relation to the housing position in Scotland?
Considering what we are to get under Part I of the Bill—and by that we must judge the Bill—we shall get fewer houses, because local authorities will be unable to afford to build them. The houses which are built will be smaller houses, because they will attract the same subsidy whether they are two-apartment, three-apartment, four-apartment or five-apartment houses. Consequently, if the authorities build at all they will build the smaller houses. In that connection, we must remember that one of the curses of Scotland today is overcrowding. This Bill will make that worse, because we shall get fewer houses and cheaper houses.
There is no solution in Part II of the Bill, and no honest Scotsman who has lived among and been brought up in contact with the people and who knows what housing means to them can possibly vote for the Bill while it contains Part I. The intentions contained in Part Ii are good. It is tricked out with respectable legal language. I do not blame the draftsmen in any way. It is the timid

trio who dealt with the Bill who are to blame. They are the people who lay down the policy and who say what powers have got to be put into the Bill. It is the job of the unfortunate draftsmen to try to do all that they want done. Therefore, no one on this side of the House blames the draftsmen for the defects in the Bill.
But good intentions are not enough. The hon. Gentleman wanted vision and bold planning. Of course, we all want those things, but, in relation to them, we have to look at the agency under which overspill and town development is to be dealt with. The Government say, "Leave it to the local authorities." Even the hon. Gentleman who was formerly Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland put forward a new scheme today. We should have been very glad to discuss it had he put it forward during the Committee stage of the Bill. Then we had that miracle of mass silence on the part of hon. Members opposite which has suddenly disappeared on Third Reading.
The fact is that the local authorities will not be able, with their own financial burdens, to advance with that vision and bold planning. How on earth can they finance this work? To my mind, it is far outwith the ability and power of many local authorities to carry it out. We on this side of the House want to see a solution to Glasgow's overspill problem, but what is here proposed can, at best, only fringe the problem. It may well lead to chaos.
Do not let anyone underestimate the problem. We have not only to clear people out of Glasgow to the receiving area, but we have to transfer industry at the same time. The factories have got to be closed in Glasgow. The houses, too, will have to be closed because we shall not want people going into them any more than we shall want industry going on in the factories. It should be remembered that the people living in the houses which are to be closed will not always be the people working in the factories that are closed.
Do not let us underestimate the social problems that arise in a receiving area. If a small decaying town is selected for this treatment—and to my mind the decaying town is the right thing to become the centre of this—there will be a


tremendous upheaval of the social life of the community. After all, the heritage of such a town is the people who live in it now, and if we are going to bring in 5,000 or 6,000 people who will swamp it we shall have to have co-operation from the very beginning.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about someone going down and discussing with the local people all the advantages involved. We must do more than that. We must discuss the disadvantages, too, so that people will know exactly upon what they are embarking and will realise the difficulties and complexities involved. I say to the Scottish Office, "Do not try to talk local authorities into doing this by just putting up the advantages, pecuniary or otherwise, and appealing to the prestige of size." What is going to matter in the end is co-operation based on an understanding of the difficulties as well as the advantages and the determination to meet these things as we go along.
Clause 16—on which we have had long discussions—parades the powers, pains and penalties and flourishes the big stick. The Joint Under-Secretary of State has done all that, and I now suggest that he takes these pains and penalties and the big stick and locks them in the furthermost cupboard of St. Andrew's House, forgets all about them, and leaves the matter to the local authorities. I would tell the Secretary of State to keep well out of the matter.
The Secretary of State has not answered with any satisfaction at all our main worry in respect of this matter. I say quite frankly that I am the Member of Parliament for an area that is interested in this question. Out of the generosity of Kilmarnock's spirit, and seeing in sight the solution of our own housing problem, we want to help Glasgow. But we in Kilmarnock have a very well-balanced community. We have a community which, more or less, enjoys full employment and which has a diversity of industry. We do not want a new dormitory suburb of Glasgow to be developed in Kilmarnock, quite apart from the fact that we might get the wrong type of people.
We are all for doing what we can in respect of transferred industry and of the people who work there and who will be able to be absorbed and become part

of the living community of Kilmarnock. We do not want to create a new community which has no links with and no roots in Kilmarnock. Kilmarnock has to demolish 1,300 unfit houses in the next five to ten years. To do that, it has to get from the Government a subsidy of £24 for each replacement house built. Can anyone imagine what the rent of these houses is going to be? If Kilmarnock builds houses for Glasgow, it will get £42, plus £14 for Glasgow, making a total of £56.
What do we imagine is going to happen in Kilmarnock if the town neglects its own housing and starts to build for Glasgow's overspill? The social implications of this are dynamite. We certainly had no evidence from hon. Members opposite during the Committee stage of the Bill that they were interested in the matter. It is true that, at times, the hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George) evinced some interest in the proceedings, and that the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Mackie) spoke in his sleep. It was a very different speech from the one which he made the other night during the debate on the Church of Scotland.

Mr. Willis: But that had nothing to do with the Bill.

Mr. Ross: The danger is that even limited success in relation to overspill may well be at the cost of destroying healthy conditions in relation to an existing community. Therefore, do not let the Government push people into agreements from which they will be unable to get out, with Clause 16 in the background. Get the people together and let them talk about the agreements. Let the agreements, be flexible.
I hope that when the Minister considers the other parts of the Bill he will cleat up the point in relation to overspill agreements and will say whether or not they are to include the industrial establishments and all the other facilities that are going to be built. How are we going to get vision and bold planning in these things unless the local authorities who build the factories know that someone is going into them who will be prepared to pay an economic rent? To my mind, the provision is far from good.
I do not propose to say very much more because I know that many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, and I hope


that as many as possible will be able to do so. To my mind, Part I of the Bill is an unwarranted attack on the Housing of Scotland. Every Tory who votes for it should be ashamed of doing so because it will mean that the homeless will have to wait longer still for accommodation and that those already living in overcrowded conditions will have to continue living in those conditions. I sincerely hope that we shall think again about the position and not try to justify it by reference to rents.
Is the Secretary of State going to say, "Look what Dumfries County Council has done," and then say to other local authorities, "Go thou and do likewise—charge £130 a year for rent and rates for a prefabricated house"? That will only lead to higher costs and higher prices which will be reflected all round throughout the community of Scotland. Part II of the Bill is lamentably weak and inadequate, and I sincerely hope that steps will be taken, even at this stage, to improve it. Of the Secretary of State's part in the matter, all I can say is that he has been "Maclay in the hands of the plotters."

5.40 p.m.

Mr. J. C. George: I shall follow some of the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) later in my speech. Now that we are approaching the end of a long and detailed examination of the Bill, I still feel that the time spent was not disproportionate to the vitality of the subjects involved. The first post-war change in financial housing policy was an extremely important step which was not very well received by hon. Members opposite, as one may learn from their speeches. There are also great plans to relieve congestion by the building of new towns and the expansion of existing towns. These are vital subjects, and particularly vital to the city of which I represent part.

Mr. Willis: There is nothing about new towns in the Bill.

Mr. George: I hope that when next the Scottish Standing Committee meets it will be streamlined. The silence about which hon. Members opposite have spoken made us feel futile and frustrated, and when next we meet I hope that there will be a timetable giving generous time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I say that frankly. I am sure —

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I hope the hon. Member will not pursue that point too far. It has no relation to the Bill.

Mr. Rankin: Are we now receiving an intimation of the Government's intentions?

Mr. George: Intimations of Government intentions never come from humble back benchers, as the hon. Member should well know.

Mr. Rankin: Who said the hon. Member was humble?

Mr. George: The futility of that long silence during Committee stage discussions was not good for the Bill, and I have no doubt that many valuable contributions were lost. That is why I hope that in future the Scottish Standing Committee will be streamlined and time-tabled.
I join in the congratulations to the Joint Under-Secretary of State. to the Lord Advocate and to the Solicitor-General. They were able and courteous all through the discussions on the Bill. The Joint Under-Secretary is batting still after a very long innings. For many days and afternoons—and a few nights—he dealt skilfully with the slow bowling of hon. Members opposite, and with the occasional Kilmarnock googly and East Edinburgh spinner which were thrown in. But he gave few chances, and still he is there, able and willing to carry on explaining and justifying the Bill, which, indeed, needs little justification.
It would be churlish were we not to say how much we on this side of the House admire the stamina exhibited by hon. Members opposite and the obviously great amount of study which has been given to the Bill. As a comparative newcomer to the House, I feel that it was an object lesson to hon. Members on this side and one which, were the country ever unwise enough to put us in Opposition, we might well use.
The Bill has two main purposes. The purpose of Part I is to provide subsidies at the levels necessary. I am prepared to join issue with the hon. Member for Kilmarnock on this point. Part II relates to progress with the development schemes. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock waxed angry about this attack on


Scottish housing standards and deprecated, in his usual terms, the performance and intentions of this Government. Surely, the hon. Member must know that we need not hang our heads when talking about our housing performance. Not a bit of it. We are prepared to cry out loud about everything we have done in the matter of housing the way in which hardships have been removed and desperate conditions dealt with such as were mentioned by the hon. Member and also at the Assembly of the Church of Scotland. We have made a most effective contribution to Scottish housing in the last five years. What did the Socialists do during the six years in which they were in office? They built 115,000 houses in six years. We have built 187,000 in five years.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member must confine himself to the contents of the Bill.

Mr. George: I will not pursue that matter further, but I felt that the attack made by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock on the performance of the Conservative Party, which was allowed to pass, should be answered. However, I accept your Ruling on that point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
At any rate, there can be no justification for the statement of the hon. Member that this is a definite attack on housing standards in Scotland. The whole record of this Government during the five-and-a-half years they have been in office disproves that. Let us look at what was said about the reduction in subsidy. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock said that it was a wicked attack on housing conditions and standards in Scotland. The hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) said that the policy of the Conservative Party, that nobody would be denied a house because they could not pay, would no longer be possible and that this imposed an intolerable burden on her local authority. The hon. Lady also made the rather naive statement that in a village in her constituency where houses had not been built since before the first war, it would be impossible to build now because of the subsidy. That sounded rather strange.
The intention of the Government in Part I of the Bill has been described as

unexpected, unjustified and cruel. But we made no secret of our intention. In 1953, in "Houses the Next Step," we said:
Any increase in private enterprise house-building, whether for letting or for sale, would in some measure lighten the ever-growing burden of housing subsidies which, in the interest of the general body of taxpayers, cannot continue indefinitely at the present rate.
That was our statement in 1953 regarding our intention about subsidies.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman indicate whether he said in his election address—or, indeed, whether the Conservative Party stated—that there would be these cuts in housing subsidies?

Mr. George: Our intention was stated in 1953 for all to read.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: But not in 1955.

Mr. George: It was on record in 1953. It was not unexpected, or should not have been. In any case, subsidies were never meant to be a permanent feature of housing finance. The 1946 Act, which was passed by the party opposite, intended that there should be a reduction in the subsidies. I will not quote the statement of Mr. Westwood which was quoted during the Second Reading debate, but he said it was the intention to reduce subsidies as quickly as possible, that the figure then fixed for Exchequer grant and rate contribution was the maximum and that it would be reduced as quickly as possible.

Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Gentleman will agree that the expectation then was that after the war we should also be reducing prices.

Mr. George: That is one of the reasons why we are moving now, because that expectation has not been fulfilled. In other words, Mr. Westwood was waiting for something to happen—a return to normality—to justify a change in the subsidy. We say now that we have reached normality. The high costs today are normal and we should pay a normal housing subsidy. The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) said in his Second Reading speech that housing subsidies were a bribe and were fixed unduly high at the end of the war. It was never intended that subsidies on all rents of all houses should be a permanent feature of housing finance.

Mr. Willis: What about Arundel Castle?

Mr. George: There is no justification for a local authority saying to everyone who applies for a house, whether he has a high or low salary, "We are going to subsidise you." That cannot be continued, and so this is neither an unexpected move nor is it unjustified.
Let us look at the charge that it is cruel and will lead generally to vicious and unreasonable rent increases. When the 1946 Act was passed, nobody anticipated that the rate contribution fixed at one-third of the Government grant would be so blatantly and widely abused —

Mr. Ross: "Abused"?

Mr. George: Yes, abused. I use the word advisedly. This increasing annual rate burden had an anaesthetic effect on local authorities who regarded it as an easy way to stop worrying about the difficulty of raising rents. It is likely to have alcoholic consequences because there is a headache coming to them now that they will have to face facts.
I am a member of a local authority which deliberately shirked the issue of raising rents year after year and placed the burden on the rates. The reason for doing this was to buy votes from the council tenants at the expense of the ratepayers. The rate contribution which was fixed at one-third of the Government grant is now over 100 per cent.—three times higher than it was expected to be when the Act was passed in 1946. Resentment is growing, and rightly so, against this increase in the rate contribution throughout the country. Freedom from the minimum payment which is granted by the Bill only recognises the fact that the minimum has never really existed and that the rate contribution has reached levels never expected.
I should like to quote what the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) said when talking about rate burdens on council houses. He said: "Remember that those with the worst houses are being forced to make a contribution to those with better houses." Those were not his exact words, but I have expressed his view. These cuts are not unexpected; neither are they unjustified nor cruel. Hon. Members opposite may try to alarm

and confuse the electorate on these points, but we must get the housing finance of Scotland on to a sound basis, and if hon. Members opposite had been in power they, too, would have had to do so. Subsidies are unduly high; rents are, generally speaking, too low, and the rate contribution is too high.

Mr. McInnes: Rents are not mentioned in the Bill.

Mr. George: I am not the first to have mentioned rents today. That subject has been mentioned by hon. Members opposite.
The money for local authority housing accounts comes from three sources—from rents, Exchequer grants and the rate contribution. The Exchequer grant is reduced, and therefore there are only two courses of action—to raise rents or to raise rates. We must leave it to the local authorities to use their good sense in dealing with the people whom they represent. In my view, rents should rise and the rate contribution should fall.
I should like to answer one point which has been raised about the so-called vicious increase in rents which will result from the cut in the subsidy. As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said, the cut in the subsidy is only £400,000.

Mr. Ross: Each year.

Mr. George: There are 500,000 council houses. If we divide £400,000 into 500,000 council houses, it comes to something like 3½d. a week—an annual increase of 3½d. a week resulting from what takes place in Part I of the Bill.
We have advocated the pooling of all the subsidies received by local authorities; that is the answer to the problem. Hon. Members opposite have always railed against that. We know that the authorities have had powers for a number of years to pool subsidies and they have not done so. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) said on the Third Reading of the Housing Subsidies Bill:
It is equally humbug for the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government to talk about this Bill providing an opportunity for the pooling of rents … If I may say so without undue pride on behalf of my hon. Friends, it was largely because of pressure from Labour groups and Labour authorities in the country that the provision enabling pooling was included in the 1936 Act


He also said:
…the pooling of rents has been going on ever since then, even on houses built since 1936."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February. 1956; Vol. 548, c. 2386.]
That is the view of the hon. Gentleman on the question of pooling which has been condemned by hon. Members opposite but which is the cure for undue increases in rent in any specific housing scheme.
To pool the subsidies over all the houses is the effect of the Bill, and that is not a vicious effect. If the local authorities have got to add to the 3½d. which I have mentioned by reducing the rate contribution, they are only doing it belatedly, because the burden has been on the wrong shoulders for years. If it is now put on the right shoulders, those who have been getting the benefit in the past cannot complain.

Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman keeps talking about 3½d. a week. Is he aware that his hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary said that the Bill would increase rents by £5 a year?

Mr. George: My hon. Friend did not say that. He said that as a result of the working party's investigation, it had been shown that if rents rose to £39 in three or four years from now, the local authorities could balance their accounts with this subsidy and the rate contribution at its proper level.

Mr. McInnes: By doubling rents.

Mr. George: Sometimes it means more than doubling rents. I quoted rents of 3s. a week, and there is no hardship in doubling 3s. It is not as if we are talking of doubling £5. What my hon. Friend said was that the working party had examined the whole picture and had come to the conclusion that the local authorities could balance their accounts at the rent of £39.
To turn to Part II of the Bill and to the town development schemes, I share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. ThorntonKemsley) and of the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) that Glasgow's problem will not be solved by town development schemes alone. I am of the opinion that at least two additional new towns will have to be built, and the quicker they are started the better.
Let us consider the town development schemes. I do not regard Part II as applying to two problems, housing and industry. They must go together. They are one and indivisible. To see that Part II achieves that purpose will require most anxious and continual vigilance from now on. As has been said many times, local authorities are bound to be suspicious and timid. This is easy to understand, and I do not think the proposals have been put very clearly to the country.
One important aspect of town development has not been sufficiently emphasised. It was stated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his Second Reading speech when he said:
The third method of providing houses for overspill is through the medium of the Scottish Special Housing Association. It is not the Government's intention that the Association should embark on an extensive new programme of overspill housing, but rather that overspill needs should be given a prominent place in determining where houses should be built by the Association in carrying out a programme on about its present scale.
I should like to know what is meant by "about its present scale." In 1953, the Association was building at the rate of 5,000, and by 1956 it had dropped to 3,000. Would it be the average or 5,000 or 3,000?
My right hon. Friend went on to say:
The broad purpose of the Association's activities is to help authorities whose housing needs are particularly great in relation to their resources.
He went on to say how that would be done. He said:
It will be a standard condition that the receiving authority will build a number of overspill houses at least equal to the number provided by the Association."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1957; Vol. 565, c. 47.]
That is an extremely important announcement which has somehow slipped past without a good deal of recognition. It amounts to this. In the overspill areas, the Association will build one for one with the local authority, and I think that that fact should be made clear beyond doubt to the local authorities, because it is vitally important. They are going to get at least half the number free and they will get the rates that will flow from them to help them with the general burden. I should like to see that point emphasised. I have said twice before that unless the local authorities can see themselves at least breaking even over the whole job, they will not be very


anxious to enter into it. Indeed, why should they be? What are they to get? They will get half the houses built by the Scottish Special Housing Association free, and for the other half which they build will get £42 a year for sixty years, plus £14 for ten years from the exporting authority, with additional grants for water and sewerage of 75 per cent.
I hope that my right hon. Friend can arrange for forecast budgets to be made out for all these possible receiving areas, showing how the local authorities will fare financially at different stages of development. By these budgets the authorities can see that the scheme can be made to pay. It should be shown that it can pay and so dispel the fears of the local authorities. Naturally, there has been much suspicion among them, and there will be, until they understand the whole scope of the scheme which they are to undertake in the future.
We must also wonder at this stage whether the local authorities will plan to build for overspill while they still have heavy waiting lists for houses. I think that this problem must be dealt with in the manner described by my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns, and that full and complete information should be passed on to the local authorities concerned. Local authorities may be much more ready to become receiving areas if they could be assured that the industry which was coming into their areas would absorb more people than those which it was bringing with it if, in fact, overspill industry would provide work for the people presently residing in the receiving towns. Naturally, we hope that all local authorities will join in the scheme, but we all recognise that the steering of industry to the right place at the right time is a vital condition.
I was very glad today to hear my right hon. Friend say that he has now arranged for the Scottish Special Housing Association to co-operate with the receiving authorities in giving its experience and skill, and that it should be paid for it. Why should it not be paid for it? I know that many of these authorities have not the skilled personnel necessary to do the job, and I am glad to know that they can get help to do it

if it is needed, and that they shall pay for that help. That is one step forward towards one of the objectives which I mentioned in my speech today.
There are many pitfalls in this scheme. We are dealing here with human beings, their fears and fancies, their happiness, ambitions and prosperity, and we must remember that their whole future outlook is tied up by considerations of where they will live and work. We are going to change that position for 300,000 of these people. It is a gigantic task. We know that there is dissatisfaction with some points in the Bill and perhaps anger about Part I, but in our hearts we all want this scheme to succeed. It can only succeed if we are vigilant, careful and energetic all the way through, using any means which appear at the time to be needed.
I would myself have accepted an Amendment which was put forward by the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire if I had thought that the proper remedy lay therein. We have got to use whatever method seems to be required at any given time. If what is now in the Bill is not enough, then we shall have to add to it as the years go by, but we have got to make the Bill work. It can work, and I am quite certain that, with the co-operation of this House and of the local authorities, it will work.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. George Lawson: None of us on this side of the House would deny the concern that we feel about the problem of Glasgow and its 300,000 overcrowded citizens, but we would not agree with the hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George) when he insists that this Bill will make a contribution of any considerable importance towards solving that problem. I myself can see no contribution of any importance; in fact, I think it will be rather the reverse, and that, instead of helping, it will hinder the solution of this problem of Glasgow's overspill.
In the little time at my disposal I do not want to attempt to follow the hon. Member for Pollok in all he had to say, but I must refer to his comments on a 3½d. increase in rents. I suggest that in this matter practice is much better than theory, and we now have before us the practice of the Dumfries-shire County


Council, which is likely to flow from this Bill. It has already been mentioned in the debate that the Dumfries-shire County Council is charging for all its houses a rent of £95 per year.

Mr. Hamilton: Who controls it?

Mr. Lawson: It is a Tory county council, which seems to be following very closely what this Bill suggests should be done. It seems to be trying genuinely to do what the Bill suggests should be done that is to say, it is a Tory county council following the lead of a Tory Government.
What is happening in Dumfries-shire is that people are being faced with rents of £95 a year, irrespective of the size of the houses, and, in the case of "prefabs", they are faced with rents and rates amounting to £130 a year. Here is the practice, as against the theory of which the hon. Member for Pollok spoke.
I should like to take up some of the major points in Part I of the Bill. Part I, apart from reducing the subsidies, establishes a principle which I and my right hon and hon Friends on this side of the House definitely consider to be a very harmful principle indeed for Scotland, if not for the United Kingdom as a whole. We have been told time after time that one of the major problems in Scotland is not merely the insufficiency of houses in terms of numbers, but the inadequacy of the rooms in the houses that exist. We know how badly Scotland has suffered from overcrowding, and we also know that it was urged on the local authorities of Scotland that they should build more larger houses.
For example, we know that in the inter-war years the local authorities in England and Wales were building practically 80 per cent. of their houses above the three-apartment or three-bedroom level—in Scotland we do not talk of bedrooms, but of apartments, and the kitchen is one room in Scotland. In Scotland, the reverse was the case, and 75 per cent. of what we were building were smaller houses. After the war, it was urged that local authorities should concentrate on building larger houses, and they did endeavour to meet this need, although there has been a steep falling away, since this Government took office, in the building of larger houses. Nevertheless, there was

that effort made, and the need in Scotland for these larger houses is still vital.
Part I of the Bill gives this flat subsidy, irrespective of the size of the house, and it cannot but follow that any local authority—perhaps I exaggerate, and should not say that it cannot but follow, because I am prepared to think that some of the local authorities will face up to their obligations and needs and build larger houses, despite the fact that they are to get no money for them. The odds are heavily in favour of local authorities building the smallest possible houses. The whole bias of this particular provision is to encourage the building of smaller houses as against the building of larger houses.

Mrs. Jean Mann: I think that the figures ought to be on record. In 1945–52, there were only 11 per cent. of three-apartment houses built; in 1953–54, it was 54 per cent.; and in 1955–57, 57 per cent.

Mr. George: On a point of order. You, quite rightly, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, stopped me from referring to the housing figures in Scotland. Is the hon. Lady in order in continuing on this line?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Lady was making only a passing reference.

Mr. Lawson: We are dealing with a provision which will affect very definitely the size of houses built in Scotland. The figures quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) are very much to the point.
The second of the provisions in Part I is that which relieves the local authority from any statutory obligation to make a rate contribution towards housing. I know that many local authorities have been contributing more than the statutory rate contribution, but they are here given notice of what the Government think ought to be done. Again, I am quite sure that many dutiful Tory local authorities will follow the advice and guidance of the Government.
Clearly, the future is to reduce and eliminate housing subsidies and to reduce and eliminate rate contributions towards housing. I would say that on this basis we have a clear indication of the Government's attitude, which is that housing


should no longer be regarded as an essential social service. I said only the other day that this type of work would never have been done had it not been for the intervention of the central authority. We are now getting the withdrawal of the central authority from the provision of houses.
I should like to comment on Part II. I am not a member for a Glasgow constituency, but I would say that the provisions here are unfair to Glasgow. I do not see why Glasgow should be asked to pay £14 towards any of these houses.

Mr. Rankin: My hon. Friend will realise that Glasgow Members have not had the chance to say so.

Mr. Lawson: Many hon. Members have denied the opportunity, but I say this as a member for other than a Glasgow constituency. The problem which arises there is not one created by Glasgow. It is a problem of the unregulated nature of the social order of which hon. Members opposite are so fond of boasting. It is this private enterprise order which moves towards where the greatest profits are to be obtained.
What has happened to Glasgow is happening to London. It is a drawing in of industry to the big centres. London has one-quarter of England's population, and Glasgow has one-quarter of Scotland's population. Over the years the population has been drawn to Glasgow, not through the action of the ordinary citizens of Glasgow, but through the unregulated type of private enterprise of which we all know.
The ordinary people of Glasgow are being made responsible, but this is a national problem. I express my disagreement. It is unfair that Glasgow should be expected to pay for the movement outsides its boundaries of those people who are now described as citizens of Glasgow. Glasgow is expected to do something which I would hardly blame it for not wanting to do. It is expected deliberately to export jobs. Time after time we have heard from the other side of the House —and even from this side—that this plan will not work unless we get the movement of the jobs as well as the people.
Glasgow is expected deliberately to buy factories, to close them, to sterilise the ground. This is to cost the city £250,000, of which it is to get one-half

back, so it will cost £125,000 per annum to export jobs. Glasgow has 16,000 unemployed. That she should be supposed to be thinking in terms of exporting jobs. I regard as fantastic. I can hardly see Glasgow being prepared to co-operate.
The approach of the Bill to this problem is basically wrong. What is called for is a redistribution of industry approach. What is essential, and what is certainly not being done here, is that the jobs should be provided in the first place. Factories should be encouraged to go to other areas; it should not necessarily he a question of closing factories in Glasgow but the development of factories elsewhere, though this may mean that some Glasgow factories will close. If the jabs are a step ahead of the people, the people will quickly go to the jobs.
The Joint Under-Secretary talked about rents not being important in determining the occupancy of factories. He talked about the availability of labour. I remind him that jobs have steadily been moving south of the Border for years, and they are still moving south. Although, proportionately, there is much more labour in Scotland than there is south of the Border, jobs are moving into the Birmingham area despite the fact that there is a great scarcity of labour there. Jobs continue to move into London although there is a great scarcity of labour. Labour becomes available and jobs become available. Labour goes to meet the job.
The approach in the Bill is backside foremost. The approach is seeking to move out first with no guarantee that once the people are out a job will go out to them. There is no guarantee of that. The approach is basically wrong. It is unjust to Glasgow. Not only is it unjust, but this is a wrong way of tackling the problem. Because the Bill gives the appearance of tackling the problem—it makes a pretence—it will do more harm than good. It will enable the Government to rest on their oars and say, "This is what we are doing; we think that if there is co-operation this will solve the problem'', but this will not solve the problem. The fact that there is this pretence will act as a smoke-screen, as it were, against getting down and tackling the problem as it should be tackled.
From that point of view the Bill is harmful, not beneficial. It will retard.


It will prevent people looking more clearly to the kind of solution which should be followed. For these reasons this is a harmful Measure, which we should certainly oppose. I shall be very happy indeed to support my colleagues when we vote against the Bill tonight.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Norman Pannell: I believe that it is unusual for a Member representing a constituency south of the Border to participate in debates on legislation of exclusive consequence to Scotland. My justification for speaking tonight is that I had the honour to be co-opted to the Scottish Standing Committee which considered the Bill in great detail, sitting throughout the night on two occasions and, on one of those occasions, well into the next day. I should not like the opportunity to pass without making a small contribution to the debate.
My view of the Bill is that it is extremely generous to Scotland in comparison with the corresponding Measure which dealt with the situation in England and Wales. The English legislation reduced the subsidy as from November, 1955, to £10 per annum for houses built for general purposes. This Bill reduces the subsidy for general housing in Scotland to £24 per annum per house. It is difficult to find the reason for that disparity, but I am told that housing conditions in Scotland are much worse than those in England and Wales.
I have some knowledge of Scottish housing, especially in Glasgow. As a Member of a deputation, I have visited the housing estates at East Kilbride and elsewhere. I am prepared to concede that housing conditions in Glasgow are probably worse than those in any other city in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Rankin: In Europe.

Mr. Pannell: But I do not concede that housing conditions in the rest of Scotland are necessarily worse than in certain parts of England and Wales. I represent a Liverpool constituency, where the housing conditions are extremely difficult. In the City of Liverpool alone, 44 per cent. of the houses have been declared unfit, yet Liverpool will get no subsidy at all, because the £10 per annum has since been abolished, as compared with

£24 per house for general housing needs in Scotland.
I fail to understand how these generous concessions come to be granted to Scotland. I can only ascribe it to the persuasive, almost inexhaustible, eloquence of Scottish hon. Members which has wrung these concessions, quite apart from the merits of the case, from a reluctant Parliament. I think that this Bill, so generous in its terms, should be seized upon with alacrity by Scottish Members, and that they should give it a Third Reading without opposition.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: I am sure that we welcome the intervention of the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell), and we hope that he will he long spared to attend the Scottish Grand Committee and, if necessary, take part on the Floor of the House in further Scottish debates.
The time now available shortens my contribution, but it is, I think, fortunate that at least one Glasgow Member on this side has caught your eye, Mr. Speaker, since Glasgow figures so considerably in the Bill. Unlike the hon. Member for Kirkdale, I do not regard the Bill as generous in its terms. It has been condemned by the speeches of the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. During the Committee stage, the Joint Under-Secretary stated the plan which this Bill was supposed to meet. The hon. Member for North Angus and 'Warns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) has referred, in part, to this already.
The Joint Under-Secretary said that, within a period of ten years,
the target is to provide 15,000 houses within Glasgow's boundaries, either on new sites or in central redevelopment; another 15,000 houses in overspill areas of other local authorities; and another 20,000 houses in the two new towns. This will be a total of 50,000 houses for 170,000 people, of whom 120,000 people will move out. That will leave an estimated 180,000 people who must sooner or later be housed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 7th May, 1957; c. 811.]
In that statement, and in the attitude of every single hon. Member opposite who has spoken tonight, there is not the faintest trace of an indication that the Government have any idea of the urgency which lies behind this problem. The Joint Under-Secretary tells us that, at the end of ten years from now, there will be 180,000 people in the City of Glasgow who will


still be waiting for a new house. At the end of ten years, we shall not have started to deal with their problem. Yet hon. Members opposite quietly congratulate themselves on what they call the generous nature of the Bill. This is shockingly inadequate treatment for what has been described by hon. Gentlemen on the Government side as the greatest social problem in Europe. Yet, at the end of ten years, we shall not have dealt with half of it.
There are people in my division who have been on the waiting list of Glasgow Corporation already for ten years, and that waiting list, which numbers 112,000 now, is still growing, despite all that is being done. What is said, in effect, is that thousands upon thousands of people in Glasgow are to have no new house at all in their lifetime, and we are asked to put that into legislative effect, the Government side congratulating themselves upon doing so. This is shocking treatment.
The hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George) admitted that he represented one of the most salubrious areas of Glasgow; Pollok is one of the newer parts of the city. If he had been in such places as I have often visited, I wonder whether he would have spoken so complacently. Has he sat, as I have done, in a single end, where lived eleven children and the mother, with four pails outside the door for conveniences, the boy of the family, a lad of 19, working to help to produce the ships on which the country's life depends, a nice, tidy girl of 17, working in a city office as a shorthand-typist—yet the whole bunch living in a single end? If he had sat, as I have, in another house and listened as the excrement from the houses above passes through, or if he had seen it trickling down the stairs, would he have been so complacent and talked so much about the financial provisions which are necessary to solve this problem?
It is a human problem, as the hon. Member for Pollok admitted later. While we all agree that money is necessary to solve it, that money, if it is to solve it within a reasonable space of years, must be given by the Government more lavishly and on better terms than are provided in this Bill.
I am sorry that I have comparatively so little time; I should like to have been

able to imitate some hon. Gentlemen opposite. None the less, I have made my point, and I will finish. The Bill stands condemned by the fact that it admits a tremendous social problem and then, in effect, it says, "All right; we will deal with a bit of it in the next ten years, and we will leave 180,000 people to stew in Glasgow's slums during those ten years. Then, at the end of the ten years, we shall awake from our sleep and start thinking about the next half of the problem". It is that next half of the problem that we should be thinking about now, in terms not merely of housing development but in terms of new towns.
Scotland is beginning to develop too much in the wrong part. It is like a man who, on reaching a certain age, begins to fatten round a particular place, around the middle. That is Scotland—getting congested round the middle, with great bare patches at both ends. This is the problem which faces us. There is the space, if we will go and occupy it. If we have to occupy it, the Government must help. We are not getting that help from the Government, and I, for one, shall be glad to go into the Lobby and vote against the Bill tonight.

6.29 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: I wish that some of the hon. Members on the Government side who talk about sharing the cost of housing more equitably had shared more equitably the time available to hon. Members in this debate. Some of the speeches were far too long—some of them, in fact, much longer than the time left to the Joint Under-Secretary and myself to conclude the debate; indeed, some hon. Members have been squeezed out altogether.
I think that every hon. Member will agree that housing.is a tremendously important economic activity. That would be conceded by the Government. Whenever the Government wish to encourage any economic activity, they subsidise it or they remove impediments to its development. That is traditional. Our minds go back to 1952, when higher interest rates were imposed. At that time, the Government had a housing target that was set by the previous Tory conference. Therefore, the Government cushioned housing against the impact of higher interest rates by increasing the subsidies. They were


removing the impediment to the development of this desirable and highly important economic activity.
Interest rates, however, have gone higher still. If the intention were the same now as in 1952, still higher subsidies
would be offered. Instead, they are reduced. The only possible deduction we can make is that the intention is not the same as it was in 1952 and that the policy has changed, as, indeed, it has. Despite what was said by the hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George), it has been changed without a mandate from the electors.

Mr. Hamilton: Like a lot of other things.

Mr. Fraser: The Government have set out to force up council rents and to slow down the building of council houses. There is no denying that. All the evidence is that they are no longer giving the assistance to the development of what they themselves agree is a most important economic activity.
Unfortunately for the Government, Dumfries-shire County Council has jumped the gun. It has anticipated the Bill and has introduced a new rents scheme. It is not an increase of 3½d. a week. This is the first To-y council to apply realistic rents under the Bill and it has determined a rent of £95 a year for every house, irrespective of its size and location, including the temporary "profabs" which have already outlived the period during which they were expected to be occupied.
To the £95 a year must be added local rates, making a rent and rates payment for each house of £130 a year, or £2 10s. a week. The Government must be very annoyed with their friends in Dumfriesshire for having anticipated the Bill in this way. They should have waited until the Government got the Bill through and then they could have done as they pleased.
I hope that hon. Members and the people of Dumfriesshire will appreciate that those same council tenants who are having this tremendous imposition put upon them must now and for many years pay more than twice as much for all the local authority services as all those genteel, Tory-voting middle-class people

with their owner-occupied houses in Dumfriesshire. That comes out of the Answer to a Question which I put to the Secretary of State yesterday. It is not a case of the other people subsidising the council tenants, but of the council tenants subsidising the others.
The Secretary of State knows full well that he does not have the backing of the Scottish people for the Bill. Almost all the local authorities are against him, except, possibly, two. There is reason to think that Edinburgh has been with him —at least, not against him—and one can assume that Dumfries-shire is not against him. Every other local authority, however, is against the right hon. Gentleman. The electors in the local elections and in the recent by-election have shown that the Secretary of State does not have their authority to put this Measure through.
In a Parliamentary democracy, the Government are accepted as governing by consent of the governed. Many are the times when hon. Members on the Government side have ridiculed Hitlerism and Stalinism because they meant government without the consent of the governed and they have boasted that we in this country have government with the consent of the governed. In this matter, clearly the Government do not have that consent. In these circumstances, the only honourable course of action for them is to get out and let the electors have the kind of Government they want.
The tenants' liability for rates was doubled by the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956. The Joint Under-Secretary of State says that rents ought to be doubled without this Bill, without the reduction in subsidies. In addition, further increases in rents will flow from the reduction in housing subsidies brought about by the Bill.
When we talk about Scottish housing, we all appreciate that our gross overcrowding is far worse than is to be found anywhere in England and we appreciate the desirability of building houses that are big enough to take families. In the Bill, however, the Government are departing from differential subsidies related to the size of the house and are resorting to a flat rate subsidy, which must be a plain incentive to local authorities to build smaller houses. On the other hand, the working party which reported to the Secretary of State made quite clear that


the most serious problem yet in Scotland was the problem of overcrowding. It is bigger houses we want, not smaller houses, but the Secretary of State has provided a plain incentive to the local authorities to build two- and three-apartment houses. This is the economics of Bedlam.
The Secretary of State and his colleagues in the Government go on appealing to the workers and to the trade unions to exercise restraint in their demand for wages. The right hon. Gentleman must know—we all know—that the trade unions have been against the Bill from the outset. They have called attention to the increases to be made in the rents and rates that people must pay. Those are costs that the workers will seek to have met by increased wages. The Government, however, go on talking glibly about the need to get a realistic rents policy. Well, the workers will demand a realistic wages policy to meet any changes in the rents policy. That is understandable.
Part II of the Bill, which seeks to deal with overspill and town development, is doomed to failure. The Secretary of State, who took no part whatever in the Committee consideration of the Bill except to move, "That the Question be now put," made his speech today and appealed to those of us who asked him questions in the middle of it to read his speech carefully tomorrow, because he was not sure that he could put a proper interpretation upon what he was reading. He could not answer his hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart), my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes), or myself. He answered the question only when he turned over the page. He pleaded with us not to press him, because he could not answer straight away.

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member must get this right. I was anxious to reach each point as I came to it, so that it would build up into a proper logical case, and answer in due course.

Mr. Fraser: When the right hon. Gentleman reads HANSARD tomorrow, he will find that when asked whether the factories would be built by Scottish Industrial Estates or the local authorities, he said that he did not know. Later, when he turned over the page, he found that the answer was, "No."

Mr. Maclay: Mr. Maclay indicated dissent.

Mr. Fraser: We will see in HANSARD tomorrow.
Part II of the Bill was supposed to be the sugar on the pill that would make the Bill acceptable, but the sugar has been found to be soft. This part of the Bill will not work. There is no reason to believe that it will work. It places far too heavy a burden on exporting and receiving authorities. The contribution from them is too high and the contribution from the Exchequer is hopelessly inadequate. There is no adequate provision in the Bill for the development of industry and for jobs in localities which are expected to take the overspill.
It is no use trying to get local authorities to take overspill from Glasgow and then, if unemployment is thereby created, for the Secretary of State to consider, with the President of the Board of Trade, the desirability of directing industry into the area. If the right hon. Gentleman is to make a success of overspill arrangements, the jobs must go there first, before and not after the people. Receiving authorities will not be so daft as to take Glasgow people into their areas while there is still unemployment among their own people.
There is no adequate provision in the Bill for assisting the receiving authorities in providing all the services and amenities which are necessary to a living community. Those of us who are anxious to deal with this overspill problem are anxious to see living communities created and not merely dormitories for people who cannot find a home within the boundaries of Glasgow. The Bill is a deception upon the Scottish people. There is no democratic authority for proceeding with the Bill. The Secretary of State has given the impression that he is so ashamed of it that he has not been able to defend its provisions in Committee or answer questions put to him today. There are only two courses open to the right hon. Gentleman. Let him throw in his hand, or throw out the Bill.

6.42 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne): On behalf of my right hon. Friend, my right hon. and learned Friend, my hon. and learned Friend and myself I should like to


thank the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) and other hon. Members for the kind remarks they have made and also to thank hon. Members opposite for their co-operation, which was given sometimes in difficult circumstances.
The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire spoke about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland not taking part in the Committee stage of the Bill. I am sure that they will agree that if a Minister is to take part in Committee he must either be in all the time or not at all. My right hon. Friend is a Cabinet Minister who speaks for Scotland. He has many important meetings to attend. He has a wide field of responsibility in Scotland's interest, and I feel sure that the way in which the Bill was conducted was the best way in the general interest of Scotland. The right hon. Member complained that my right hon. Friend did not delegate responsibility to his Joint Under-Secretaries. My right hon. Friend cannot, of course, delegate his responsibilities. Whatever is done is his responsibility, but, as we showed the Committee, he trusts his Under-Secretaries and his Law Officers.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) that the Bill is not a complete solution to Glasgow's overspill problem. It is no more than a major step in the right direction. I do not follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) at all when he says that the Bill hinders overspill. The Bill creates overspill machinery, and without it there would be no overspill.
I agree with the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) that, of course, other steps have to be taken. It is true that we have not measured up to the whole problem. Our job is to measure up to the present problem and those parts of the problem that will arise as Glasgow's central redevelopment proceeds. The Bill deals with overspill provision, and all the 300,000 people to whom the hon. Member referred are not immediately in need of homes.
The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire said of Part I of the Bill, "All

we can say about it is that we are still against it," and the arguments adduced during the remainder of the debate have not taken us very much further than that. This view was elaborated by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and by the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), who spoke of high interest rates and raised a constituency point to which, if I have the time, I will reply later. All that part of the debate was answered so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Pollok (Mr. George) that I would not again attempt to answer it. There are far more important things to discuss.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus spoke more against than in favour of high flats. They are one of the factors in the solution of Glasgow's problem. Some people like high flats. Not everybody wants a garden. The difference in price is not £1,000 but £900, and we hope to reduce the figure substantially. I would hope to see local authorities in all parts of Scotland building high flats where that is necessary and desirable.
The hon. Member for Hamilton blamed the Bill for rent increases. I do not blame him. It is quite good party policy to try to pin rent increases on the Bill, but I have sufficient regard for the hon. Member to know that he really knows that rents of local authority houses, if those bodies wish to square their accounts, would be doubled if we tore up the Bill. I will not accept the pinning on this Bill of rent increases by local authorities in Scotland.
The Hon. Member for Hamilton spoke about Dumfries County Council. As I have said before, my right hon. Friend is not responsible for the matter to which he referred. The hon. Member also spoke of a rent of £95, but what has not been said from the other side of the House is that this figure will not be payable unless there is an income for the family of about £20 a week. In other words, the burden on tenants follows the income.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and the hon. Member for Hamilton raised a point on which I would plead them to believe that they are wrong. They suggested that the Bill would lead to overcrowding and to smaller houses being built. This is a very serious point, put


perfectly genuinely by hon. Members opposite, but if they will examine housing schemes in our big cities they will see rows and rows of largish houses which were built at the time when that was the greatest need. They will also see from the housing authority lists that the great need in Scotland now is not for the larger houses but for a balanced community.

Mr. Willis: Rubbish.

Mr. Browne: The hon. Member should go to his own constituency.

Mr. Willis: I know my own constituency.

Mr. Browne: The hon. Member should go there and see the elderly couples whose families have left them and who are still living in four-apartment houses and cannot get two-apartment houses. He should see the elderly people who are condemned to live in four-apartment houses because smaller houses are not available. Does he think that local authorities will be so regardless of the needs of their own areas as to build houses of a type other than that which their people need?
I now come to Part II of the Bill. The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire said that the Government were unimaginative. The Bill is not the product of imagination, though some of the arguments put from the benches opposite may be. The Bill relies not upon imagination, but upon a most exhaustive survey of the facts. In my short experience in the Scottish Office I know of no Bill or part of a Bill which has been subjected to a more exhaustive survey than Part II of this Bill, and I assure the hon. Member for Hamilton that it is not doomed to failure. He says it is salt and not sugar. This Bill is good Scots' porridge and the Scots prefer salt on it.

Mr. Rankin: It is very thin porridge. There is not enough meal in it.

Mr. Browne: My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus spoke with great knowledge, and gave us a very interesting survey of the difference between our legislation and the proposals adopted in England and Wales, and he emphasised the many practical improvements which are being made by the Bill for Scotland.

I can assure him, and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok, that we shall study with very great care their speeches and the constructive suggestions made.
I can assure them that my right hon. Friend's Department will willingly and actively co-operate as far as practicable. I realise that the civil servants in Saint Andrew's House, who have such great knowledge of these problems, can be of real assistance. I have seen them in action, and anything they can do within their powers they will be prepared to do, but we must not forget that there are other agencies—the Clyde Valley Regional Planning Advisory Committee, to which we are very grateful, as I am sure hon. and right hon. Members opposite will agree; Scottish Industrial Estates on the industrial side; and Glasgow Corporation itself, which will, as I know, because I have talked with its members, give all the technical help and advice which that great organisation can give.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to talk about major defects in the Bill, and he said that the Government had made sure that they would not be involved financially. What about the £42 for overspill? What about the Scottish Special Housing Association, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Pollok spoke? I agree with my hon. Friend that the Association is prepared in certain circumstances to provide 50 per cent. of the overspill houses. What about the town development scheme, which qualifies for a very generous grant indeed? Of course the Government are involved financially. That statement by the right hon. Gentleman was quite wrong, and he knows it. He spoke of the default powers and said that the Government had dug a gun in the back of the local authorities. He even took us to Chicago. I prefer to agree with the hon. Member for Kilmarnock

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman is too late in doing that.

Mr. Browne: —who said about these powers, "Let us lock them in the cupboard." Yes, we shall lock them in the cupboard. We shall not find any skeletons in it at this time of day. We shall leave it to the local authorities. He said that that is what we must do, and I agree with him.
He said, and I think the hon. Member for Hamilton also said, that we must put new life into our old communities. I agree. We do not want people to be so housed in housing schemes on the outskirts as to be separate communities, perhaps with longer daily journeys to make. We want to merge the people in the overspill areas into our old communities, and bring new life and new blood into them, and that we shall try to do.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that for Development Areas the Government should take powers if all else failed. That was the substance of the Amendment which he put down, and which was referred to by my right hon. Friend. I must remind the right hon. Gentleman when he regrets the Government have not taken the powers he wishes that those powers are in relation mainly, almost entirely, to the rents of the factories, and that experience has shown that fair rents are no barrier to firms moving into an area and establishing factories there.

Mr. Woodburn: I think everybody agrees with that, but in cases where that does not work I said that there was no reason why the Secretary of State should not have powers—when there are exceptional cases.

Mr. Browne: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's problem, but it is not rents that matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nobody said that."] What matters are the facilities available.

Miss Herbison: Factory space.

Mr. Browne: I am coming to the question of factory space. The receiving authority can provide the factory space. If a firm has not enough money for a factory the receiving authority can if necessary give rent rebates, and can borrow the money to provide the factory, just as it can borrow money to provide houses. If it can borrow for housing, it can borrow for factories. The factories can earn and can pay economic rates of interest in the form of rent.
The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North dealt with this point and said that local authorities could build the factories now. I agree with her. But she did not say that the local authority in a Development Area could not have

built factories unless we had Clause 25 of the Bill. She said that the stumbling block was lack of finance. I do not think her fears are justified. I remind the House that my right hon. Friend will watch this very closely indeed. I do not believe that the Public Works Loan Board would raise any difficulty over the small authority which needed the capital and which failed to obtain it on the open market.

Miss Herbison: To do the Government's job.

Mr. Browne: The local authority in building a factory is adding to its rateable assets. It is a good thing for a local authority to provide a factory. It is a good investment for the ratepayers.

Mr. T. Fraser: Why should it not be for the taxpayers? If it is such a good investment for the ratepayers, why would it not be an equally good investment if the Scottish Industrial Estates built a factory as a good investment for the taxpayers?

Mr. Browne: Because we want the local authority to stand on its own feet—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and to run its own show. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart) spoke of the provisions in the Bill to help industry. I shall answer the interjection of the hon. Member for Hamilton when I say that my hon. Friend spoke wisely of the necessity for and the growing ability of industry to stand on its own feet. He was concerned about the need for some new body such as the Scottish Industrial Estates to help industries establish themselves. We shall look at that, but he will remember the I.C.F.C.—the Industrial and Commercial Finance Corporation. It can give substantial assistance.
The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North considered that building advance factories is a great attraction to industry. Here there is ground for a definite and honest difference of opinion. I personally do not agree. I think that advance factories are expensive, because when firms come into them they have to alter them, and I am sure that the majority of firms prefer the local authority to provide factories tailored to suit them. The experience of the hon. Member was


of a time when there was very little factory space and firms were prepared to take anything.

Mr. T. Fraser: My experience happens to be up to date.

Mr. Browne: I have considered this very carefully and I know that there are firms of the opposite opinion, and who think that factories are best provided when they are tailored to suit them.
In summing up I would say that we have heard the voice of truth from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell) because hon. and right hon. Members will agree that, in comparison with England and Wales, the Government have done well by Scotland and the Scottish people by the Bill. By the miscellaneous provisions in Part III we are legislating to increase both the scope and the amount of well-maintained payments. By Part I we take full account of Scotland's special housing problem in the revised rates of subsidy, by keeping the subsidy in Scotland for all approved houses, and the retention of a specially favourable subsidy for agricultural workers and for houses in remote areas, by the special and generous arrangements for incoming industrial workers, by the sensible and more generous new high flats subsidy, by the £42 subsidy for overspill houses and by the invaluable assistance of the Scottish Special Housing Association which will build free houses and create rateable value for hard-up local authorities and for overspill areas.
All these are adapted to the special needs of Scotland. As in England and

Wales, we have given the local authorities a greater measure of control over their own housing policy by cancelling the statutory rate contribution. In Part II of the Bill we have, after exhaustive investigation, created an instrument for dealing with overspill that is superior to its English counterpart, as it should be, because it comes later. We have removed the barrier that prevented local authorities in Development Areas from providing the factories themselves. We have made new provisions that will help exporting authorities to move out of their area factories displaced by central redevelopment.

By the whole conception of the town development scheme and the framing of provisions for grants we have given receiving authorities substantial Government assistance in a way, and at a time, they need it most. As my right hon. Friend announced, we now have supporting us actively and positively, the Board of Trade and Scottish Industrial Estates. I believe we have the people of Scotland supporting us, and especially the citizens of Glasgow who, without this Bill, would be condemned to live in a degree of squalor and overcrowding unknown elsewhere in Britain.

This Bill, as it should do, makes sense. It is urgently needed now, and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite may rue the day when they sought to delay its passage in Committee.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided : Ayes 312, Noes 240.

Division No 136.]
AYES
[7.2 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Butcher, Sir Herbert


Aitken, W. T.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Bidgood, J. C.
Campbell, Sir David


Alport, C. J. M.
Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Carr, Robert


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Gary, Sir Robert


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Bishop, F. P.
Chichester-Clark, R.


Arbuthnot, John
Black, C. W.
Cole, Norman


Armstrong, C. W.
Body, R. F.
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger


Ashton, H.
Boothby, Sir Robert
Cooke, Robert


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Bossom, Sir Alfred
Cooper, A. E.


Atkins, H. E.
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Corfield, Capt. F. V.


Baldwin, A. E.
Boyle, Sir Edward
Craddook, Beresford (Spelthorne)


Balniel, Lord
Braine, B. R.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)


Barber, Anthony
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)


Barlow, Sir John
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Cunningham, Knox


Barter, John
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Currie, G. B. H.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Brooman-White, R. C.
Dance, J. C. G.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Davidson, Viscountess


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Bryan, P.
Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement(Montgomery)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Burden, F. F. A.
Deedes, W. F.




Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Partridge, E.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Iremonger, T. L.
Peyton, J. W. W.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Piokthorn, K. W. M.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


du Cann, E. D. L.
Jenkings, J. C. (Burton)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Pitman, I. J.


Duthie, W. S.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pott, H. P.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Powell, J. Enoch


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. (Kelvingrove)
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Price, David (Eastlelgh)


Elliott, R.W.(N'oastle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Joseph, Sir Keith
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Profumo, J. D.


Errington, Sir Erlc
Kaberry, D.
Raikes, Sir Victor


Erroll, F. J.
Keegan, D.
Ramsden, J. E.


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Rawlinson, Peter


Finlay, Graeme
Kerr, H. W.
Redmayne, M.


Fisher, Nigel
Kershaw, J. A.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Kimball, M.
Remnant, Hon, P.


Forrest, G.
Kirk, P. M.
Renton, D. L. M.


Fort, R.
Lagden, G. W.
Rldsdale, J. E.


Foster, John
Lambert, Hon. G.
Rippon, A. G. F.


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lambton, Viscount
Robertson, Sir David


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lancaster, Col. C. C.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Freeth, Denzil
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Robson-Brown, W.


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Leather, E. H. C.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Gammans, Lady
Leavey, J. A.
Roper, Sir Harold


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Leburn, W. G.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E, A. H.
Russell, R. S.


Gibson-Watt, D.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Glover, D.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Godber, J. B.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Sharples, R. C.


Gomme-Dunoan, Col, Sir Alan
Llewellyn, D. T.
Shepherd, William


Goodhart, Philip
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (Sutton Coldfield)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Cough, C. F. H.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Gower, H. R.
Longden, Gilbert
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.
Soames, Christopher


Grant, W. (Woodside)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Speir, R. M.


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwioh)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)


Green, A.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Gresham Cooke, R.
McAdden, S. J.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Grimond, J.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Stevens, Geoffrey


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
McKibbin, A. J.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Curden, Harold
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Storey, S.


Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.
Maclean, Fitzroy (Lanoaster)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold(Bromley)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Macmllian, Maurice (Halifax)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Teeling, W.


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Maddan, Martin
Temple, John M.


Hay, John
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W.(Hornoastle)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Henderson, John (Cathoart)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr.R.(Croydon, S.)


Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Hesketh, R. F.
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Hioks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Marshall, Douglas
Turner, H. F. L.


Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Mathew, R.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Maude, Angus
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Vane, W. M. F.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Mawby, R. L.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Vickers, Miss Joan


Hobson, John (Warwick &amp; Leant'gt'n)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Holt, A. F.
Moore, Sir Thomas
Wall, Major Patrick


Hornby, R. P.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Horobin, Sir Ian
Nairn, D. L. S.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Neave, Airey
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Nicholls, Harmar
Webbe, Sir H.


Howard, John (Test)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Wood, Hon. R.


Hurd, A. R.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S,
Woollam, John Victor


Hutchison, A. M. C. (Edinburgh, S.)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark(E'b'gh, W.)
Osborne, C.



Hutchison, Sir James (Sootstoun)
Page, R. G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hyde, Montgomery
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Mr. Oakshott and Colonel




J. H. Harrison.







NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Popplewell, E.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Harbison, Miss M.
Prentice, R. E.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Awbery, S. S.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Probert, A. R.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hoy, J. H.
Proctor, W. T.


Baird, J.
Hubbard, T. F.
Pryde, D. J.


Balfour, A.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Randall, H. E.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rankin, John


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Hunter, A. E.
Redhead, E. C.


Benson, G.
Hynd, H. (Acorington)
Reeves, J.


Beswick, Frank
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Reid, William


Blackburn, F.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Rhodes, H.


Blenkinsop, A,
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Blyton, W. R.
Janner, B.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Boardman, H.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn&amp; St.Pncs.S.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Panoras, N.)


Bowles, F. G.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Boyd, T. C.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Ross, William


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Royle, C.


Brockway, A. F.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Short, E. W.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Burke, W. A.
Kenyon, C.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
King, Dr. H. M.
Skeffington, A. M.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Lawson, G. M.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Carmichael, J.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Champion, A. J.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannook)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Chapman, W. D.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Snow, J. W.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Lewis, Arthur
Sorensen, R. W.


Clunie, J.
Lindgren, G. S.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Coldrick, W.
Lipton, Marcus
Sparks, J. A.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Logan, D. G.
Steele, T.


Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
MacColl, J. E.
Stonehouse, John


Cove, W. G.
MacDermot, Niall
Stones, W. (Consett)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
McGhee, H. G.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Cronin, J. D.
McGovern, J.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
McInnes, J.
Stross, Dr. Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
McKay John (Wallsend)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Swingler, S. T.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Sylvester, G. O.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mahon, Simon
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Deer, G.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Dodds, N. N.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Donnelly, D. L.
Mason, Roy
Thornton, E.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Mayhew, C. P.
Tomney, F.


Dye, S.
Mellish, R. J.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Messer, Sir F.
Usborne, H. C.


Edelman, M.
Mikardo, Ian
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Mitchison, G. R.
Warbey, W. N.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Monslow, W.
Watkins, T. E.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Moody, A. S.
Weitzman, D.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Morrls, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm,S.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mort, D. L.
West, D. G.


Fernyhough, E.
Moss, R.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Fienburgh, W.
Moyle, A.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Finch, H. J.
Mulley, F. W.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Fletcher, Eric
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Wigg, George


Forman, J. C.
Oliver, G. H.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Oram, A. E.
Wilkins, W. A.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Orbach, M.
Williams, David (Neath)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)
Oswald, T.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Gibson, C. W.
Owen, W. J.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Padley, W. E.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Greenwood, Anthony
Paget, R. T.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Grey, C. F.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Griffiths, David (Bother Valley)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Winterbottom, Richard


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Pargiter, G. A.
Woof, R. E.


Hale, Leslie
Parker, J.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Hamilton, W. W.
Parkin, B. T.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Hannan, W.
Paton, John
Zilliacus, K.


Hastings, S.
Pearson, A.



Hay man, F. H.
Pentland, N.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Healey, Denis
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Mr. Holmes and Mr. John Taylor


Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

RENT BILL

7.10 p.m.

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 3.—(ADJUSTMENT AS RESPECTS RATES BORNE BY LANDLORD.)

Lords Amendment made: In page 3, line 41, leave out first "in" and insert "for".—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Clause 5.—(INCREASE FOR IMPROVEMENTS.)

Lords Amendment made: In page 5, line 8, at end insert:
relating (if it so provided by the order) not only to future but to past rental periods",—[Mr. H. Brooke.] [Special Entry.]

Lords Amendment : In page 5, line 13, at end insert:
and
(b) the consent contained an acknowledgement (however expressed) that the rent could be increased on account of the improvement.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is linked with the last Amendment on the Notice Paper, in page 44, line 43, at end insert:
and that paragraph (b) of the proviso to the said subsection (3) shall not apply.
The two Amendments are designed to ensure that in future, when consenting to an improvement, a tenant will do so with his eyes open to the fact that he may be charged an increase of rent in respect of it. I hope that this will be generally acceptable.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: We agree with the intention and principle of the Lords Amendment. There is only one question that I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman. I take it that the acknowledgment has to be part of the consent in writing, and, therefore, that it is in writing, and that there is no question of a casual and verbal acknowledgment of any sort. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman can reassure me on that point.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. James MacColl: I should like to explore a little further the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). I would draw attention to the words

"(however expressed)". It seems an odd phrase to have in the Bill. Does it widen the measure of consent if one allows the consent to be more than just an acknowledgment, or does it narrow it? I should have thought that "consent" was a consent and that "acknowledgment" was an acknowledgment. I do not see why it is necessary or desirable to insert extra words which seem not to define the matter in any way but leave it extremely vague.
One could imagine tenants giving consent to increases in rent in language which might not be regarded as quite appropriate for legal documents. Is this just a warning that if one uses perhaps a four-letter Anglo-Saxon word in an agreement to have one's rent raised, it does not in any way invalidate the consent? 
The House ought to be told why it is desirable to insert these words, and whether we can assume that a good working rule is the general principle that because the Minister is inserting them they must be unfavourable to tenants. One usually finds that that explains things, but I do not know whether it does in this case.

Mr. H. Brooke: It will be found that the Amendments made in another place have mostly been favourable to tenants. The words referred to need to be read with the immediately preceding words in lines 9 to 12, in page 5 of the Bill, where there is reference to the tenant under the controlled tenancy consenting in writing to the improvement.
The view was taken in another place that that consent might be given without the tenant appreciating that the improvement would cost him something in increased rent. The Amendment is designed to remove any danger of that kind. It provides that the consent must contain an acknowledgment, however expressed, that the rent could be increased on account of the improvement. The consent must be in writing. Therefore, I do not see how the consent, if it is to contain something, could contain something which was not in writing. It would be in the interests of everybody to make sure that there was no dubiety on that matter.
I hope that I have satisfied the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) and the hon. Member for


Widnes (Mr. MacColl). It is not for me to criticise another place for having suggested inserting certain words. I thought that the hon. Member for Widnes was suggesting that the Amendment was wrongly or too fully drafted. I do not think that it is. I think it wise to have these words in the Bill. I do not see that they damage the sense in any way. I think that the one substantial point was that raised by the hon. and learned Member.

Mr. MacColl: Surely it is highly undesirable to insert in a Bill words which mean nothing. That is asking for trouble. Lawyers are paid to find meanings for words and if these words are inserted lawyers will find meanings for them. Merely to say that we should agree with what another place has done and not waste time on it, and that another place must have had some reason for doing this, although the Government do not know what it is, is derogating from the duties of this House.
Our business is to protect people from sloppy legislation and against building up possibilities for litigation. I can see another place having a happy time as the supreme court of appeal in deciding the meaning of these words, at considerable profit to a large number of people in the process. We should be quite certain that words are necessary and desirable and carry some meaning with them.

Mr. H. Brooke: They mean exactly what they say. They mean "however expressed." It is not a matter on which forms, and so forth, will be prescribed, as they have to be prescribed elsewhere in the Bill. We should make all this as simple as possible and if the words "however expressed" are retained in the Bill, that will avoid possible arguments about technicalities, which is the kind of thing which the hon. Member said it was desirable to avoid. If the words are bad for anybody, they are bad for lawyers.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Clause 6.—(VARIATION OF RENT UNDER CONTRACTUAL TENANCY.)

Lords Amendment made: In page 5, line 27, after
"served" insert "by the landlord".—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Clause 7.—(INCREASE OF CONTROLLED RENTS.)

Lords Amendment made: In page 6, line 13, leave out "two" and insert "three".—[Mr. J. N. Browne.]

New Clause A.—(RENTS OF SUBSIDISED PRIVATE HOUSES IN SCOTLAND.)

Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 40, at end insert Clause A:

A.—(1) The conditions which are mentioned in any of the enactments specified in the next following subsection or which have effect by virtue of any undertaking or agreement entered into in pursuance of any such enactment shall, in so far as they relate to the rent to be charged in respect of any dwelling-house in Scotland, limit that rent, and if imposed before the commencement of this Act shall have effect as if they limited that rent, to an amount equal to the rent which might properly be charged in respect of that dwelling-house by virtue of those conditions together with any sum recoverable in respect thereof by way of repairs increase under the Act of 1954 or by way of 1957 Act increase.

(2) The enactments referred to in the foregoing subsection are—

(a) section two of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924;
(b) section three of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926;
(c) section one hundred and one of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950;
(d) sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section one hundred and fourteen of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Mitchison: On a point of order. In these proceedings are we allowed to speak more than once without the leave of the House?

Mr. Speaker: I am very much obliged to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) for raising this point. I did not like interrupting proceedings earlier, but the rule is strictly enforced on these Amendments that there can be only one speech from an hon. Member on each Amendment, except by leave of the House. I did not intervene earlier, although I might have done.

Mr. Mitchison: Further to that point of order. I take it that it is in order for an hon. Member to speak on an Amendment to the Lords Amendment and then on the Lords Amendment itself.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, because they are two separate questions.

Mr. Browne: When the Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Act, 1954, was introduced it was made quite clear that the intention of the Government was to include as eligible for repairs increases all controlled houses for which the landlord was responsible for repairs, except, of course, those specified in Section 16 (3) of that Act. Indeed, an Amendment excluding such houses from the repairs increases was rejected. I want to read a short passage from HANSARD of the 13th sitting of the Scottish Standing Committee on the Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Act.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart), who was then Secretary of State, said this:
I have listened with care to the speeches which have been made and welcome the opportunity of dealing with these two Amendments. The first proposes that no increase in rent should be payable in the case of
'a controlled house which was built with the aid of local and Exchequer subsidies.'
There seems no good reason why a house built with the aid of subsidy should be denied any increase at all.
He went on to say:
The whole object of Part II of the Bill is to permit that, on account of the fact that pre-war rents are no longer adequate to maintain houses in repair, a sufficient increase in rent to achieve that purpose shall be allowed." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 23rd March, 1954; c. 727.]
A position of some doubt has now arisen in respect of certain houses built or improved with subsidy or grant and with rents limited by conditions attached thereto. The doubt is whether charging of the increase would constitute a breach of the conditions attaching to the payment of subsidy or grant, which might become no longer payable, or, in certain circumstances, refundable.
The effect of the new Clause is not to widen the range of rent increases, but to clear any doubts regarding the true position of these houses and their continued entitlement to subsidy. As hon. Members opposite will realise, under the Bill as it stands, without this new Clause, there is nothing to prevent proper application of rent increases. The purpose of the "1957 Act increase" is to help towards keeping houses in good repair. The cost of repairs has gone up since the rents of these houses, which reflected the subsidy or grant, were fixed and it would he wrong to leave in doubt whether repairs

increases and 1957 Act increases, if applied to the houses under discussion, would result in loss or repayment of the grant.

Mr. James McInnes: I do not think that the intention of the Lords Amendment is so simple as the Joint Under-Secretary would have us believe. One of the enactments to which it refers is Section 2 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, which relates to the provision of houses being built by a society, a body of trustees or a company, provided that such a society, body of trustees or company does not trade for profit and has a constitution prohibiting the issue of any shares or loan capital with interest or dividend exceeding the rate prescribed by the Treasury.
Section 25 of the Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Act, 1954, deliberately excluded from the provisions of the Rent Acts housing associations, authorised societies, development corporations, the Scottish Special Housing Association and kindred bodies. How, by the provision of the Lords Amendment, can we reincorporate, as it were, all these bodies into the provisions of the Rent Bill? I am of course aware that Section 2 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, also refers to Sections 2 and 3 of the Housing, &c. Act, 1923, and Section 3 again deals with these bodies, societies and housing associations and similar bodies. But Section 2 of the Housing, &c. Act, 1923, refers to the powers which are vested in local authorities in granting subsidies to private contractors who were prepared to promote the building of houses at that time.
We have had experience in Scotland of a body known as Western Heritable Investment Company which, under the provisions of the 1924 Act, provided houses for rent. That organisation, as the Joint Under-Secretary is well aware, has been in violation of all the regulations and agreements relating to subsidies, because as it has obtained vacant possession of houses it has sold them.
I know that the Joint Under-Secretary will tell me that the matter referred to in the latter part of my observations was decided by the court of session, but I want to know why, under Section 25 of


the Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Act, we excluded these organisations from the operations of the Rent Acts and why, by this Amendment, we are reincorporating them. I want the Joint Under-Secretary's views about the position of the Western Heritable Trust.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: Those of my hon. Friends who have looked at the Amendment regard it as most objectionable. We have been looking through the various Statutes referred to in subsection (2) to see what houses the Joint Under-Secretary is proposing to include in the provisions of the Bill. First, we have the category referred to in paragraph (a)—the 1924 Act category. Those are houses in respect of which a subsidy of £9, or £12 10s. if the house happens to be situated in an agricultural parish, is payable for a period of forty years. That subsidy is being paid now, and it will continue to be paid for some time to come.
A little while ago the Joint Under-Secretary made a speech reiterating that subsidies should be paid only to people who needed them, but these subsidies are paid to the owners, and they are being paid for houses in respect of which the local authorities have decided what are the reasonable rents. The local authorities having so decided, the Joint Under-Secretary is proposing, in the Amendment, that the rents approved by the local authorities will now be increased by 25 per cent., for no other reason than that the houses are in a fit state for habitation. Without any further expenditure on the part of the owners, the houses having been built with a subsidy and still attracting a subsidy, the tenants have to pay 25 per cent. more rent than is considered to be fair by the local authorities, merely because the houses happen to be fit for human habitation.
Paragraph (b) refers to houses covered by Section 3 of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, which are houses reconstructed or improved which have earned a grant up to two-thirds of the cost, with a limit of £100 for each dwelling, again, I believe, with local authority control of the rent.
Paragraph (c) covers houses dealt with in Section 101 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, which are houses built in

replacement of unfit houses, for agricultural workers. A very substantial grant is given in this case—£240 for a three-apartment house and £300 for a four-apartment house—with a measure of control over the use to which the houses will be put for a period of forty years. So long as an agricultural worker occupies one of these houses the Amendment would not apply, but as we know full well, a great many of those houses are no longer occupied by agricultural workers. As and when such a house ceases to be so occupied, and it becomes occupied by someone else, the rent is fixed by the local authority.
That rent might have been fixed last week by the local authority—or even this very day. The local authority may have determined a reasonable rent for the house—a house towards the cost of which a grant of £300 had been made to the owner from public funds because the house was needed for a farm worker. Now, however, since the farmer has let the house to somebody other than a farm worker, the owner is to be permitted immediately to demand an increase of 25 per cent. if the house is fit for human habitation. The House cannot tolerate that kind of provision.
Lastly we have the fourth category, in paragraph (d)—houses which have been improved by means of improvement grants of 50 per cent. of the cost of the improvement, the money coming from public funds. The owner of such a house will have been entitled to increase the rent by 8 per cent. of his expenditure, but by including such a house in this provision it would appear that the owner, having got this 8 per cent. increase, will now be quite certain of being able to claim an automatic increase of 25 per cent. if the house is fit for habitation.
Further, if he does any worth while repairs at all he will be able to claim a 50 per cent. rent increase—although the house is in a fit state only because of the amount of grant the owner has already received from public funds. This seems to me to be a monstrous proposition, and unless the Joint Under-Secretary can give a much more adequate justification for its inclusion in the Bill I hope that my hon. Friends will resist the Amendment.

Mr. J. N. Browne: What the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr.


McInnes) said about non-profit-making companies and the like is, I am advised, not really relevant. It is not correct to say that these organisations are excluded. The Western Heritable Trust and other similar bodies to which the hon. Member referred, and which are referred to in the Statutes, are entitled to a repairs increase or a 1957 Act increase under the Bill in any case. I would draw the hon. Member's attention to yet another quotation from a speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart) during the Committee stage of the Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Bill, when he said:
The Western Heritable houses, to which reference has been made in connection with the second Amendment we are discussing, were built in the 1920s, and they are older, generally speaking, than the local authority houses."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 23rd March, 1954, c. 728.]
The point whether or not the Western Heritable Trust and other similar houses should be entitled to the 1957 Act increase or the repairs increase has already been dealt with under the 1954 Act, when it was discussed by this House. The question before the House today is whether, if the increase is applied for and is granted, the firm concerned would be entitled to have this grant continued, or would lose it, or would have to repay it if it were given in the form of a lump sum.
The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) went through all the categories of houses mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) separately, and sought almost to raise points which would have been more properly raised in connection with the proceedings on the 1954 Act. Paragraph (a) involves about 8,000 houses which were all built before the war. They receive £9 a year for forty years on condition that the rents are limited to those normally charged by local authorities for working-class houses built before 3rd August. 1914—and the Act finished in 1935

Mr. T. Fraser: The fact that the Act finished in 1935 does not answer the question. What were the rents, when were they adjusted, and can they be further adjusted from time to time?

Mr. Browne: I am trying to make the point that when we enacted in 1954 we excluded under Section 16 (3) certain houses from the repairs increase. The

houses where the rent was fixed by the landlord after 1st September, 1939, which was subject to rent tribunal after 1st September, 1949, were excluded. The houses which received the improvement grant fixed after 1949 were excluded. Local authority houses sold after 1954 were excluded. Agricultural houses sold after 1952 were excluded. What the hon. Member now says is that houses built prior to 1952 should have been excluded. My point is that—I do not know really, Mr. Speaker, whether this is in order—

Mr. Fraser: Surely it is in order.

Mr. Browne: These houses were specifically excluded in 1954 and all this new Clause is doing is covering the question of grants and not the question of repairs increase; not the question of their entitlement to repairs increase; but only the question whether if they apply for a repairs increase are they in danger of losing their grant—

Mr. Fraser: No—

Mr. Browne: If I cannot satisfy the hon. Member with that. I cannot do any better.

Mr. Fraser: I am not asking if they are going to lose their grant. I have read subsection (1). If the hon. Gentleman looks at the matter on the lines of subsection (1) of the new Clause, he will see that the whole purpose of the Clause is to ensure that these houses set out in subsection (2) may qualify for the 1954 Act or the 1957 Act increases. It is about that I am quarrelling with him.

Mr. Browne: Yes, but it makes it clear that they can apply for the improvement grant without losing their subsidy. What is not clear is, if they apply for a grant as they are entitled to do, whether or not they would lose their subsidy.—

Mr. Fraser: It is quite impossible—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss it in this conversational way. If the hon. Member has finished his speech, I will put the Question. The Question is, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Does any hon. Member wish to speak to this matter?

Mr. McInnes: We were waiting to hear the Question.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Colonel J. H. HARRISON and Mr. BROOMAN-WHITE were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, and Mr. HOLMES and Mr. J. T. PRICE for the Noes, but it appeared that a Member who had not been appointed had told for the Noes.

Division No. 137.]
AYES
[7.50 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Davidson, Viscountess
Hesketh, R. F.


Aitken, W. T.
D'Avigdor-Goidsmid, Sir Henry
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Deedes, W. F.
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Alport, C. J. M.
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Arbuthnot, John
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hobson, John (Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)


Armstrong, C. W.
Drayson, G. B.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Ashton, H.
du Cann, E. D. L.
Holt, A. F.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hope, Lord John


Atkins, H. E.
Duthle, W. S.
Hornby, R. P.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Baldwin, A. E.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Horobin, Sir Ian


Balniel, Lord
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. (Kelvingrove)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence


Barber, Anthony
Elliott, R. W.(N'castie upon Tyne, N.)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Barlow, Sir John
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)


Barter, John
Errington, Sir Eric
Howard, John (Test)


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Erroll, F. J.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Finlay, Graeme
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Fisher, Nigel
Hulbert, Sir Norman


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Hurd, A. R.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Forrest, G.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clarke(E'b'gh, W.)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Fort, R.
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)


Bidgood, J. C.
Foster, John
Hutchison, A. M. C. (Edinburgh, S.)


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Iremonger, T. L.


Bishop, F. P.
Freeth, Denzil
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Black, C. W.
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Body, R. F.
Gammans, Lady
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Boothby, Sir Robert
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Gibson-Watt, D.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Glover, D.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Godber, J. B.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Braine, B. R.
Comme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Goodhart, Philip
Joseph, Sir Keith


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Cough, C. F. H.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Gower, H. R.
Kaberry, D.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Keegan, D.


Bryan, P.
Grant, W. (Woodside)
Kerby, Capt. H. B.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Kerr, H. W.


Burden, F. F. A.
Green, A.
Kershaw, J. A.


Butoher, Sir Herbert
Gresham Cooke, R.
Kimball, M.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Kirk, P. M.


Campbell, Sir David
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Lambton, Viscount


Carr, Robert
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Cary, Sir Robert
Gurden, Harold
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Leather, E. H. C.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.
Leavey, J. A.


Cole, Norman
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Leburn, W. G.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Cooke, Robert G.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersffeld)


Cooper, A. E.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macolesfd)
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Llewellyn, D. T.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (Sutton Coldfield)


Crowder, Sir John (Finohley)
Hay, John
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Longden, Gilbert


Cunningham, Knox
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.


Currie, G. B. H.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Dance, J. C. G.
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)

Whereupon, Mr. SPEAKER directed the House to proceed again to a Division:—

The House proceeded again to a Division—

Colonel J. H. HARRISON and Mr. BROOMAN-WHITE were appointed Tellers for the Ayes and Mr. HOLMES and Mr. JOHN TAYLOR for the Noes, but it appeared that the Division bells had not been rung.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER directed the House to proceed again to a Division.

The House divided: Ayes 309, Noes 239.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Page, R. G.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


McAdden, S. J.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Partridge, E.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


McKibbin, A. J.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Storey, S.


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Studholme, Sir Henry


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Pitman, I. J.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Pott, H. P.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Powell, J. Enoch
Teeling, W.


Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Temple, John M.


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Maddan, Martin
Profumo, J. D.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Raikes, Sir Victor
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Ramsden, J. E.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R.(Croydon, S.)


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Rawlinson, Peter
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Redmayne, M.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Turner, H. F. L.


Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Marshall, Douglas
Renton, D. L. M.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Mathew, R.
Ridsdale, J. E.
Vane, W. M. F.


Maude, Angus
Rippon, A. G. F.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Maudling, Rt. Hon, R.
Robertson, Sir David
Viokers, Miss Joan


Mawby, R. L.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Medlicott, Sir Frank
Robson-Brown, W.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Wall, Major Patrick


Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Roper, Sir Harold
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Moore, Sir Thomas
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Russell, R. S.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Mott-Radolyffe, Sir Charles
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Webbe, Sir H.


Nairn, D. L. S.
Sharpies, R. C.
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Neave, Airey
Shepherd, William
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Nicholls, Harmar
Simon, J. E. S, (Middlesbrough, W.)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Smlthers, Peter (Winchester)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Nicolson, N. (B'n'nVth, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Wood, Hon. R.


Oakshott, H. D.
Soames, Christopher
Woollam, John Victor


O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Speir, R. M.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)



Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Colonel J. H. Harrison and


Osborne, C.
Stevens, Geoffrey
 Mr. Brooman-White




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hale, Leslie


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Cove, W. G.
Hamilton, W. W.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hannan, W.


Awbery, S. S.
Cronin, J. D.
Hastings, S.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hayman, F. H.


Baird, J.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Healey, Denis


Balfour, A.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Herbison, Miss M.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Howell, Denis (All Saints)


Benson, G.
Deer, G.
Hoy, J. H.


Beswick, Frank
Delargy, H. J.
Hubbard, T. F.


Blackburn, F.
Dodds, N. N.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Blenkinsop, A.
Donnelly, D. L.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Blyton, W. R.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John(W. Brmwch)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Boardman, H.
Dye, S.
Hunter, A. E.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Bowles, F. G.
Edelman, M.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Boyd, T. C.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Brock way, A. F.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Janner, B.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn &amp; St.Pncs, S.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Burke, W. A.
Fernyhough, E.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Fienburgh, W.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Finch, H. J.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Forman, J. C.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Callaghan, L. J.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Jones, T. W. (Merloneth)


Carmichael, J.
Gibson, C. W.
Kenyon, C.


Champion, A. J.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Chapman, W. D.
Greenwood, Anthony
King, Dr. H. M.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Lawson, G. M.


Clunie. J.
Grey, C. F.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Coldrick, W.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Collick, P, H. (Birkenhead)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)







Lewis, Arthur
Pargiter, G. A.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Lindgren, G. S.
Parker, J.
Strachey, Rt. Hon, J.


Lipton, Marcus
Parkin, B. T.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Logan, D. G.
Paton, John
Stross, Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Pearson, A.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


MacColl, J. E.
Pentland, N.
Swingter, S. T.


MacDermot, Niall
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Sylvester, G. O.


McGhee, H. G.
Popplewell, E.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


McGovern, J.
Prentice, R. E.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


McInnes, J.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Probert, A. R.
Thornton, E.


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Proctor, W. T.
Tomney, F.


Mahon, Simon
Pryde, D. J.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Mainwaring, W. H.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Usborne, H. C.


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Randall, H. E.
Viant, S. P.


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Rankin, John
Warbey, W. N.


Mason, Roy
Redhead, E. C.
Watkins, T. E.


Mayhew, C. P.
Reeves, J.
Weitzman, D.


Mellish, R. J.
Reid, William
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Messer, Sir F.
Rhodes, H.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Mikardo, Ian
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
West, D. G.


Mitchison, G. R.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Monslow, W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Moody, A. S.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Wigg, George


Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm,S.)
Ross, William
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Mort, D. L.
Royle, C.
Wilkins, W. A.


Moss, R.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Williams, David (Neath)


Moyle, A.
Short, E. W.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Mulley, F. W.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Oliver, G. H.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Oram, A. E.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Orbach, M.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Oswald, T.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Winterbottom, Richard


Owen, W. J.
Snow, J. W.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Padley, W. E.
Sorensen, R. W.
Woof, R. E.


Paget, R. T.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Paling Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Sparks, J. A.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Steele, T.
Zilliacus, K.


Palmer, A. M. F.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)



Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Stonehouse, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Holmes and Mr. John Taylor.

Clause 12.—(PREMIUMS NOT TO BE CHARGED FOR DECONTROLLED TENANCIES.)

8.0 p.m.

Lords Amendments made: In page 11, line 43, after
"by" insert "reason only of."

In line 44, after "Act" insert:
or of those provisions and of subsection (7) of section twelve of the Act of 1920 (which excludes from the Rent Acts tenancies where the rent is less than two-thirds of the rateable value)

In page 12, line 4, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
Provided that this subsection shall not affect the assignment of a tenancy granted before the

commencement of this Act and not renewed or continued thereafter, being a tenancy to which subsection (7) of section twelve of the Act of 1920 applies.

In line 12, leave out "subsections" and insert "subsection".

In line 15, leave out "subsection (1) of this section" and insert "the foregoing subsection".—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Clause 15.—(MINIMUM LENGTH OF NOTICE TO QUIT.)

Lords Amendment made: In page 13, line 8, after
"notice" insert:
by a landlord or a tenant."—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

New Clause B.—(PROVIS1ONS TO FACILITATE EXCHANGE OF CONTROLLED DWELLINGS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 11, at end insert Clause B:


B.—(1) Where it is so agreed in writing between the tenant under a statutory tenancy of a dwelling and a person proposing to occupy that dwelling (hereinafter referred to as the "incoming tenant"), the incoming tenant shall subject as hereinafter provided be deemed as from such date as may be specified in the agreement (hereinafter referred to as the "date of exchange") to be the tenant of the dwelling under that statutory tenancy; and the question whether the provisions of the Rent Acts as to the succession by the widow of a deceased tenant or by a member of his family to the right to retain possession are capable of having effect in the event of the death of the incoming tenant shall be determined according as those provisions have or have not already had effect in relation to the statutory tenancy.


(2) An agreement under the foregoing subsection shall not have effect unless the landlord is a party thereto, and if the consent of any superior landlord would have been required to an assignment of the tenancy on the coming to an end of which the statutory tenancy arose the agreement shall not have effect unless the superior landlord is a party thereto.


(3) An agreement under subsection (1) of this section may provide that the provisions of the Rent Acts mentioned in that subsection shall be capable of having effect in the event of the death of the incoming tenant notwithstanding that they had effect in favour of the tenant to whom he succeeded.


(4) It shall be unlawful to require the payment of any pecuniary consideration for entering into an agreement under subsection (1) of this section; and—


(a) the amount of any payment made which under this subsection could not lawfully be required shall be recoverable by the person by whom it was made either by proceedings for its recovery or, if it was made to the landlord, by deduction from any rent payable by the said person to the landlord;


(b) a person requiring the payment of any consideration in contravention of this subsection shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, and the court by which he is convicted may order the amount of the payment to be repaid by the person to whom it: was paid:


Provided that subsection (4) of section two of the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act, 1949 (which allows an assignor to charge the assignee for apportioned outgoings, improvements, and goodwill) shall apply with the substitution for the reference to subsection (2) of that section of a reference to this subsection, and for references to the assignor, the assignee and the taking effect of the assignment of references to the tenant, the incoming tenant and the date of exchange.—[Mr. Bevins.]

Mr. Mitehison: I beg to move, as an Amendment, to the Lords Amendment, in line 15, after "landlord", to insert "consents and".
I should like also to refer to a similar Amendment in line 19, and to a further Amendment in line 19, at the end to insert:
Provided that a consent required under this subsection (other than a consent by a local authority) shall not be unreasonably withheld or made subject to an unreasonable condition.
(3) A dispute as to the reasonableness of the withholding of any such consent as is mention in the proviso to the last foregoing subsection or as to the reasonableness of any

such condition as is mentioned in that proviso may be determined by the county court, or in Scotland by the sheriff, on the application of the tenant. Rules of court may provide for notice of such applications, for the joinder of appropriate parties and for the hearing together of two or more applications. On such an application the court or the sheriff may order that the consent shall be deemed to be given, subject to such conditions, if any, as seem just, and such an order shall have effect as if the consent had been given in accordance with the order.
We on this side of the House have something to say about this proposed new Clause as a whole, having regard to what was said on Report in this House, but for the moment I take it, as it is on the


Notice Paper, that it refers only to statutory tenancies. There are many people in this country who are statutory tenants without knowing it because by now many tenancies which started as a matter of agreement have become statutory tenancies, for instance by increases of rent. There is no doubt that they are the majority of tenancies of controlled houses, and without this Clause it would not be possible to assign those statutory tenancies or to exchange them. That I take to be the object of the Clause.
The Government, ever since the Bill was introduced and at every stage of it, have found their sole justification for the hardship and uncertainty that the Bill is certainly going to cause in the contention that it will make it easier to make good use of the existing supply of houses. That is the whole of their case, so far as it is a case, that they dare bring forward to the light of day. The remainder of it rests on uncovenanted and unreasonable benefits to landlords which they do not so use as the best reason to give for the Bill. So we may take it officially that the reason for the Bill is that it will promote the better use of existing accommodation.
For that reason one would have expected the Government at a much earlier stage to have taken notice of the suggestion which many of us, including myself, made as early as the Second Reading of the Bill, that if that was what they really wanted they ought to facilitate exchanges. We pointed out at the time that exchanges no doubt serve a useful purpose and that if they could be carried through without driving people forcibly out of their houses we would be doing a great deal to help the better use of existing accommodation.
It was not until we brought forward two proposed new Clauses on Report that anything was done about that. One of those new Clauses, the one which in moving I and a number of my hon. Friends stressed, differed from the other in this respect that we knew by quite long experience, and experience in many parts of the country both in England and Scotland, that, in fact, the difficulty about exchanges had always been—this I think was admitted on the Government side—that many landlords would not agree to exchanges because they hoped to get possession of the houses and, perhaps, to sell them or to deal with them in other ways.
That was the attraction to the landlord before the Bill came in. The attraction to him, if and when it becomes law, will be that he will be able to get his house decontrolled. Consequently, if we are to leave the question of exchanges and the question of remaining in control to whether the landlord does or does not agree, we shall only get results which, but for this technical difficulty about the statutory tenancies, we might have got anyhow. We are taking no steps whatever to ensure that the landlords in those cases will prefer the public interest—that is the better use of existing accommodation—to their own private interest which will lie in getting the houses in question decontrolled.
I need not remind the House that the burden of this trouble is that if there is a new tenancy the house, whatever its value, becomes decontrolled. The result is that but for some provision about it there would be decontrol all over the place arising from exchanges. If we are to facilitate exchanges, the worst thing to do is to threaten the two tenants concerned with passing from control to decontrol. Yet that was what the Government proposed to do. Now in relation to statutory tenancies they have got so far, broadly speaking, as putting in machinery, and it is little more than machinery, for making an exchange possible between tenants of two separate houses when the landlords are willing, but the Government have declined, in spite of what was said on Report, to take any steps whatever towards dealing with a recalcitrant landlord.
I have never said in the House, and do not say now, that all landlords are wicked people, but I do say that, like many other people, they tend to look after their own interests, and in this case their own interests may well prevail over what is the public good. What is it we are proposing should be done? We are simply proposing that if on the proposed exchange between statutory tenancies a landlord refuses to consent it should be open to those who are primarily concerned—the people who have to live in those houses—to take that landlord to the county court, or in Scotland the sheriff court, and get it decided whether his refusal to consent is unreasonable or not.
There is a precedent for that, and quite an old precedent. It goes back some


thirty years and it is now the law of this country that if there is a stipulation in a lease that an assignment, which is what this amounts to, should not be made without the landlord's consent, then there is to be implied that that consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, and there is legal machinery in that case in the High Court for giving effect to it.
It is with that legislation in mind—and that legislation is, I am sure, fresh in the memory of all of us, and particularly fresh and fruity in the memory of the Parliamentary Secretary, whose long experience of local government and whose present experience of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, should at least enable him to know something about it—that I heard with surprise the hon. Gentleman say that the objections that "we", that is, the Government and their supporters, "feel towards the proposal" were that it was a proposal "that compulsion should be used in the matter of exchanges". Later again, when asked by me if taking the landlord to the county court was thought by the Tory Party to be compulsion, the answer was, "That is the element of compulsion in the new Schedule" which we were then discussing and which raised exactly the point, which, within rather a narrow compass because of the character of this Clause, we seek to raise by the Amendment we are now presenting.
Let us see what that means. It comes to this. In the eyes of the Tory Party, in this Bill, with all its consequences, the landlord is entitled unreasonably to withhold his consent and to take him to the county court to determine any question about it is compulsion. Is it that landlords are above the law, or is it that the Tory Party as a whole is above the law, or do hon. Members opposite prefer to support those whom they wish to be above the law?
Here is a Bill reeking of county courts so far as the tenant is concerned. He is dragged there by every point of it. If we want to take the precious landlords to the county court, the ones who are unreasonably withholding their consent, we are told that is compulsion. I feel inclined to reply to the hon. Gentleman that if that is compulsion, I do not wonder that he complains of some other things that are done in this place by

both sides of the House. It is, of course, merely a recourse to the ordinary machinery of justice.
What does "unreasonably withhold" mean? I think that it is probably clear, as it was clear in similar circumstances when they arose under the Rent Acts, that it would be an unreasonable refusal if the landlord simply objected because he did not like the operation of the Bill. I think it right to say that in order that the refusal should not be unreasonable, there must be some objection to the character of the proposed tenant—he may not be able to pay the rent—or, on the other hand, some objection to the way in which the premises are to be used and occupied. If it is of any interest to lawyers opposite, there is authority to that effect, but I do not desire to trouble the House with matters of that sort at the moment.

Sir Ian Horobin: Any plausibility in the argument which the hon. and learned Gentleman is now addressing to the House surely disappears, at least I hope so, if he will direct his attention to the first lines of the last Amendment on the Order Paper in his name and the names of his hon. Friends which says:
Provided that a consent required under this subsection (other than a consent by a local authority) shall not be unreasonably withheld …
So on his argument everything he has put to us means that the local authority can unreasonably withhold its consent, which is surely nonsense.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: I do not think that helps. It seems to me that local authorities have a public duty to fulfil and it is not proper that their performance of that public duty should be dealt with in the county courts. It is not in other respects, and I do not see why it should be in this.
I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman—and I am much obliged to him for calling attention to this, because I was about to do so. Let me tell him why. This proposed new Clause relates entirely to statutory tenancies so we cannot have local authorities in the position of withholding consent. They will not have statutory tenancies as housing authorities. The words that we put in, out of which I think was really an excess of caution,


were to cover the case not of housing authorities but of those local authorities who had to provide houses for people like teachers, police, and so on.
I think that the answer there is that if, in fact, they do provide those houses, they are almost always on an equivalent of a service tenancy. I was going to say—and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised the point—that if that is all that sticks in the gullet of hon. Gentlemen opposite I will here and now offer, if they will accept the Amendment, to ask your leave, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and by consent, to put in a manuscript Amendment removing the offending words. To tell the hon. Member the truth, I do not think that they make much difference one way or the other. If there are any such cases they will certainly be extremely rare.
Let us go from the niceties of draftsmanship and curious instances to the real substance of the matter. The hon. Gentleman will remember that he found this argument rather attractive on the Report stage, and I am hoping to have his support in the Lobby later on. I feel certain that with his long experience he would not support the type of landlord against whom this Amendment is directed.
I say quite frankly, at the risk of repeating myself, that it might well be that only a minority of landlords will be unreasonable in this respect. I do not myself think so, because it is in their personal interest to be rather unreasonable, but if we assume that is the case it is still wholly wrong that even a minority of unreasonable landlords should be allowed to obstruct what the Government say is their only real object in the Bill—the proper use of housing accommodation. That is the substantial point.
If any council or anyone who has had to deal with negotiating these exchanges were to get up and say what they know, this would be the answer. Some landlords will play; other landlords just will not play. They are unreasonable in the sense, not so much because they have a bad reason as because they have no reason at all. There have been reported cases in the courts where they insist on some divine right of a landlord to choose the next tenant. We cannot rely on that when we are dealing with the housing

accommodation of the country. We cannot rely on people who look only at what they can get out of the house and who are only too anxious that there should be no exchange because, in that way, the house will become decontrolled, and instead of the rent being roughly doubled, it will be increased by—I take the rough estimate that has been given—2½ or three times. We should not do it; nobody should try.
I say that this Amendment, drafted as best we can—it may not be perfect and there is certainly no room for error at this stage of the proceedings—puts the right principle on the right path. It will create no hardship to anyone except to the man whose unreasonable attitude and unreasonable action is obstructing the national advantage by preventing an otherwise desirable exchange.

Mr. Niall MacDermot: I beg to second the Amendment.
It is extraordinary that the Government should introduce only at this very late stage a Clause to deal with the crucial problem of exchanges between controlled statutory tenants. When one sees them introducing it at this stage and in such an emasculated form as this, it shows the hypocrisy of the arguments which have been adduced in favour of the Bill.
With what is the Bill supposed to be dealing? There are two major problems to be dealt with. One is how to get more money spent on putting into a decent state of repair the poorer class of properties. It is proposed in the Bill to deal with that by offering the landlord a bait by enabling him to increase the rent, and I will say no more about that because it is not relevant to the Amendment. The second problem is how to make the best use of existing accommodation. That means, in effect, how to overcome the problem of under-occupation and how to facilitate movement by the occupiers of such properties.
The Government believe that by their extensive measures of decontrol they will contribute to the solution of the problem. We disagree with them and we have argued about it, but I will say no more about it at this stage. The Government's Clause and our Amendment are concerned with how to deal with


the problem of under-occupation in properties which remain subject to control under the Bill. The solution to the problem can to any substantial extent be found only by way of exchanges. This is nothing new; it has been known for a long time, and the Minister is himself very well familiar with the nature of the problem because he was the Chairman of the Housing Management Sub-Committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee which reported very fully on the question in 1953.
In its lucid Report, the Committee analysed what were the existing obstructions to these exchanges between tenants where some properties were under-occupied and there was overcrowding in other properties. It showed how in some cases reluctance on the part of local authorities to take part in exchanges with other local authorities or private landlords was a bar to such exchanges. It showed how in one instance there was an impediment from the will of the tenants themselves, in that a tenant of a controlled property with a very low rent would not be willing to change if it meant a rent increase.
The Committee recommended for that reason that in the revision of Rent Act legislation an attempt should be made to equalise rents. That has been done by the Bill. Consequently, the only bar which was mentioned to exchanges from the tenants' side, if the Government prove right about this, has been removed.
What remains? There remains what was recognised in the Report to be the major impediment—the refusal of private landlords to participate in such exchanges. The relevant paragraph is paragraph 26 of the Report, which reads as follows:
There are a number of explanations for the fact that comparatively few exchanges take place which involve the tenants of private landlords. In very many cases, a result of the Rent Restriction Acts is to give the private landlord a strong financial inducement to aim at obtaining vacant possession of his house in order to sell it. The tenants most interested in the idea of exchanging are often old people who would like to move into a smaller house; but, because they are old, the landlord may be reluctant to agree to a change since this is the property likely to fall vacant soonest. This practical difficulty is the more regrettable in that it is precisely these exchanges involving old people which might contribute most towards reducing under-occupation and bringing
larger houses into fuller use.

The fact that under the Bill the landlord who gets possession of his house will, in addition to being able to sell it, be able to let it at a so-called free letting rental will not alter the fact that the whole weight of financial inducement to the landlord will be towards holding out for vacant possession, whether it is to sell or whether it is to let at the so-called free rental. In either event he has the same financial inducement.
The importance from the national point of view of overcoming this unwillingness of landlords was fully recognised by the Committee over which the present Minister presided. The recommendation, contained in paragraph 16, was in these terms:
We recommend that all house-property owners, whether public or private, should in the national interest as well as their own examine whether they can do still more than they are doing in the way of judicious encouragement of suitable transfers.
All we are asking by the Amendment is that landlords should not be allowed unreasonably to withhold their consent to exchanges of this kind, which must on all sides be conceded to be in the national interest. That, in a nutshell, is what the Amendment is about. I hope we shall hear no more of this cant about not wishing to introduce an element of compulsion against landlords. Let it be remembered that what we are dealing with here is ex hypothesi properties which are still subject to control and which are therefore of a type and in an area where there is a shortage of such houses, otherwise they would be decontrolled, presumably, by the Minister under his powers in Clause 10 (3) or there would be alternative accommodation. We are, ex hypothesi, dealing with properties of a class in which there is a shortage.

Mr. John Hay: It is a false hypothesis.

Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Member says it is a false hypothesis. I will give way if he wishes to show why.
In these circumstances, if the landlord is allowed to withhold his consent, and if he is allowed to wait until he gets vacant possession and then is able to compel the new tenant to pay a rental which is artificially inflated by that very housing shortage, there is a very strong element of compulsion in favour of the landlord against the tenant. That is an element of


compulsion against which there is no safeguard by any provision that the rent shall be a reasonable rent. All that has been swept away. All that we are asking is that when a provision is being introduced to facilitate exchanges of controlled properties the landlord shall not be allowed unreasonably to withhold his consent.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Hay: The history we have had from the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) on the subject of this Lords Amendment and the Amendment which he moved lacks a few details. I would remind the House that we discussed this matter fairly fully on the Report stage, when there were two propositions on the Paper. One was a new Schedule proposed by the Opposition, which, in the view of many of us on this side, introduced—I apologise to the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot)—what we considered to be an undesirable element of compulsion. The second was in a much easier form, which did not have that particular element, and, if I remember correctly, my right hon. Friend said that he would think the matter over and, if possible, suggest to the other place that some new Clause not containing this element of compulsion should be introduced and added to the Bill. As I understand it, that is the new Clause which, as a Lords Amendment, the House is now considering, to which the Amendments have been tabled.
At that stage, as I think the House should be reminded, hon. Gentlemen opposite were by no means dissatisfied with the progress they had made. They had recognised at an early stage, as has been said, that there is a problem in exchanges, and they had tried—I think even during the Committee stage—to introduce something into the Bill to deal with it. But having achieved that progress and got that assurance from my right hon. Friend, they now complain bitterly because the first course they wanted us to take, involving the first Schedule which we discussed on Report, has not been introduced. I hope to show in a few moments that a lot of the fears which have been expressed in the two speeches to which we have just listened are likely to prove unjustified.

Mr. Mitchison: The hon. Gentleman is most kind in giving way, because we shall

have to refer to this matter later and it is well to have it right. I asked the Parliamentary Secretary:
Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to be undertaking on behalf of the Government to insert in another place a Clause to the effect of the new Schedule standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren)?
The Parliamentary Secretary replied:
The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 27th March, 1957; Vol. 385, c. 1172.]
I mention that because the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay), as he will remember, gave a somewhat more qualified account.

Mr. Hay: That, I think, is what I was just saying to the House. [HoN. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, I think so. There were two propositions, two Schedules. The House as a whole, as I think the debate showed, did not particularly like the first one. The second was more acceptable, and my right hon. Friend, or my hon. Friend, gave the assurance which the hon. and learned Gentleman has just read out. The Government are now carrying out the pledge which was given, and the Opposition are complaining again.
Let me leave the history, since there is some dispute—let the record speak for itself—and come to the merits here. It is right to say that we on this side are as much concerned as hon. Gentlemen opposite with the correct and full use of housing accommodation. To adopt the words used by, I think, the hon. and learned Member for Kettering in moving his Amendment, we are all concerned about how best we can facilitate the proper use of housing accommodation.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: What is wrong with the Amendment?

Mr. Hay: What is wrong with the Amendment is that it seems to ignore the fact that, if an exchange between two people, which the new Clause in the Lords Amendment seeks to facilitate, does not come about, no unit of housing accommodation is lost. If the landlord does not consent to the sitting tenant moving out and letting another tenant come in in his place—and that is what the Lords Amendment is all about—that


does not mean that the unit of accommodation is lost. It may be that the landlord will obtain decontrol, but unless he intends to use that accommodation for some entirely different purpose, such as industrial or commercial user, he will eventually want to re-let it.
As I see it, the argument comes down to this. The party opposite would like us to provide here that the unit of accommodation is to be re-used not at a free market rent but at the controlled rent.

Mr. S. Silverman: I can quite understand the argument of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) that, without the Amendment, the dwelling unit is preserved, as it were. What I asked him in an interruption, to which he was good enough to reply, is what he thinks would be wrong in principle if the Amendment which my hon. and learned Friend moved were accepted. Before I sit down, may I remind him that the effect of it would be simply to introduce into this matter of the exchange of statutory tenancies what is already a statutory right in the case of any other leaseholder who is restrained from assigning his lease without the consent of the landlord. It was the late Earl of Birkenhead who, in his legislation, provided the very thing in that respect which my hon. and learned Friend seeks to introduce into this matter of the exchange of statutory tenancies. The hon. Member knows this matter extremely well. What I asked him was: what, in his opinion, would be wrong, in principle, with the Amendment?

Mr. Hay: If I may, I will answer the question a little later.
As I see it, the difference between the two sides of the House is that whereas the Opposition wish the re-letting of this unit to be at the controlled rent, we on this side believe that nothing is wrong if the landlord is allowed to re-let under decontrol. My reason for saying that there is not a great deal between the two sides is that by the earlier Clauses of the Bill we are providing a rent level for controlled houses, such as those which we are now discussing, which is much closer to the economic or market rent than such rents have been up to now.
The hon. and learned Member said in his speech that landlords would be able to let this sort of accommodation decontrolled, not at twice the present rent, but

at two-and-a-half or three times the present rent. I did not interrupt him, but the test is not the present rent, but two-and-a-half or three times the gross value. If it is accepted—

Mr. Mitchison: Two-and-a-half or three times is only an estimate. I understand from a journey to Hampstead that the Minister has accepted that what is meant is two-and-a-half or three times the present rent, or a much higher figure than twice the present rent, which is also a rough figure arrived at from the exact basis of the Bill.

Mr. Hay: I am talking about what is in the Bill. It provides that the controlled rent for these houses in future will be normally twice the gross value. Estimates were given from a number of quarters, both inside and outside the House, that the level of decontrolled rents, certainly in the larger towns, would be somewhere between two-and-a-half and three times the gross value, whatever the present rents may be. That, I think, was the point that the hon. and learned Member was making. I do not think, therefore, that there is really such a great deal between us on this point.

Mr. S. Silverman: There is a tremendous difference.

Mr. Hay: As I see it, what will happen is this. A landlord might refuse his consent, whether unreasonably or not. Sooner or later the accommodation will become decontrolled, but, presumably, when it is decontrolled, he will then have to let it again—

Mr. Mitchison: Why?

Mr. Hay: —because he will either let it, let it stand empty, or use it for some other purpose.

Mr. Silverman: Or sell it.

Mr. Hay: I will come to the point about selling. The landlord must do one or other of those things. When he does, he will do so at something approaching, or perhaps a little above, the controlled rent in any event. I do not think there is all that much in it.
If the landlord seeks to sell the house, he will be selling in a market very different to the one we have experienced up to now. He will be selling in a market in which rent levels, for both controlled


and decontrolled property, are much closer to the economic rent. That happens to be one of the by-products of the Bill which is so much attacked by the Opposition. It will result in a disappearance of these sales to pull in as much money as possible. Why are landlords selling at the moment? When they can get possession of a decontrolled house, they sell it with vacant possession so that they can unlock some of their capital. If they can let a house at an economic rent, they will have no such compulsion to sell.

Mr. G. Lindgren: Will the hon. Member tell us of any time in history when any landlord did not get all he could whenever he could?

Mr. Hay: I come to the point raised by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who asked what was wrong with his hon. and learned Friend's Amendments. I think they are unnecessary. I do not think there is any need to have this provision about an appeal to the county court by one or other of the two persons concerned if the landlord refuses his consent for the reasons I have tried to explain. We are not in the presence of a situation in which a unit of accommodation will be lost completely to the letting market simply because some obstinate landlord refuses his consent. The place will be re-let and, though the level of rent will be different, the accommodation will be there.

Mr. Albert Evans: Is the hon. Member not missing the immediate consequence of an unreasonable refusal by a landlord to allow the exchange? It surely would be that one family would remain overcrowded and another family would remain with more rooms than it required, and one workman would have to travel fifteen miles to work and the other possibly ten or twelve miles?

Mr. Hay: The hon. Member again has forgotten that when the Bill is on the Statute Book we shall be moving into an entirely different climate in housing.

Mr. Lindgren: A landlords' paradise.

Mr. Hay: I am glad to see that at last the light is beginning to dawn on the benches opposite. As soon as the Bill is enacted, we shall have at once a freer situation in housing and the power to let at whatever rent we can get. The

problems which the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) sees as militating against an exchange at the moment will not arise.
Here is something else for the Opposition to jeer at. If anything is needed to make the new Clause B work better, it is the omission of subsection (4), because I can conceive that a landlord, faced with the possibility of obtaining possession and having the chance of re-letting at a decontrolled rent, may very well say, if he is not allowed to make anything on the transaction, "I will not give my consent." That might be the way of making sure that the new Clause will work better than it may do as it stands. That is a point of argument, but I am certain that the Opposition Amendments are unnecessary, for the reasons that I have explained. There will be no loss of accommodation if the new Clause B is passed unamended. The level of rent to be charged will be approximately the same, though perhaps a little higher in one case, and there should be a useful supplement to the operation of the free market which will do a great deal in the years ahead to solve our housing problems.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: We must be very grateful to the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) for disclosing a good deal of the Government's intentions. It is rather surprising that we have had to wait until this very late stage in the proceedings of the Bill to obtain the information which we are now getting. It has been studiously put about by the Government, in the House and outside, that, in effect, the only major field of decontrol is the decontrol of those houses which are over certain rateable value limits. Throughout the country the great mass of people still believe that to be so.
In by-election campaigns in which this Bill has been a major issue the party opposite has distributed leaflets declaring that this is the position. When many of us on this side of the House have done our best to make the facts known to the general public, we have been told that what we say is not true and that we are misleading the people. But here is the hon. Member for Henley saying precisely what many of us have been saying about the effect of the Bill in widening the field of decontrol.

Mr. Hay: This has always been in the Bill.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Of course it has, but hon. Members opposite and their party, officially, in campaign after campaign in the country, including that in Newcastle, North, have said in the Press and in their own leaflets that the Bill will only affect properties of a rateable value in London of £40 and of a rateable value of £30 in the provinces.

8.45 p.m.

It is monstrous that the truth about this is only now being admitted by hon. Gentlemen opposite, when it is too late to do much about it. However, further by-elections will no doubt take place, and there it may be even more difficult for hon. Gentlemen than in the recent case of Hornsey. There will be a different climate of public opinion, and it will be even more difficult for hon. Gentlemen than it has been during recent months to make any progress in getting even their most solid seats returned to the House. Indeed, one may even have fears about the position of the constituency of the hon. Member for Henley—

Mr. Hay: May I say how touched 1 am by the solicitude of the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Blenkinsop: We also understand the hon. Gentleman's solicitude for landlords as a whole, good, bad and indifferent.
It is important to note that we have this further emphasis from the hon. Member that one of the results of the Bill will be that large numbers of properties on change of tenancy will be decontrolled. The hon. Gentleman has said that this will not have any real effect upon rents. I do not understand how he can say that. I do not know what justification he has for saying that it will not result in higher rents than the rents provided for controlled properties under the Bill. Indeed, I think that it will be found that much higher rents may be extracted by the landlords in the new realm of decontrol, which may come as a further shock to tenants all over the country.
The other point we wanted to discuss was the way in which this new Clause, although making a useful mechanical change in the provisions of the Bill,

really goes nowhere to meet the real needs of the situation as we know them. Those of us who meet our constituents week by week, and have an enormous number of such claims upon us to try to help in arranging exchanges, know that today there are as many of these cases as there are appeals for additions to the ordinary council housing list.
I think hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree that there are a great number of people who want to secure exchanges and who have gone to a great deal of trouble and difficulty to get another tenant to agree to an exchange. Often one landlord is the local authority, which has expressed its willingness to approve an exchange, but the other is a private landlord who will not do so. I have cases every week, as I am sure have many hon. Members on both sides of the House, and it seems only obvious and reasonable that we should try to ensure that those exchanges should go through.
I should have thought that the modest wording of our Amendment, which tries to ensure that a landlord shall not withhold his consent unreasonably, is a proper proposal. We know the kind of situation that arises in our divisions in our constituencies. Often we have the case where a local authority says that it is willing to rehouse a tenant if it can get the use of the accommodation that he is leaving. The local authority says to the landlord, and it seems fair, "We do not require you to take any special tenant. We ask you to agree to take one tenant from our list."
In Newcastle, we still have a waiting list of about 16,000 people. I know that there are cities with more. It is not unreasonable to invite the private landlord to select someone from the waiting
list to help to reduce it. What the authority says is not, "You must take a particular tenant", but, "You should take someone from the list". Very many landlords, unhappily, will not comply. To their credit, a few do. Some of the landlords who arc agreeable to having exchanges have come to me and said, "We think it is unfair to us that we should be willing to do this when so many others are not. Why do you not take some powers so that in proper cases you can insist that a private landlord must take the tenant who is offered, as long as there is no obvious objection which could be taken to the proposed tenant?"


These are the sort of points that we are putting forward. It seems to me that, as my hon. and learned Friend and other hon. Members have pointed out, unless what we propose is accepted, it makes nonsense of the suggestion of hon. Members opposite that they are eager to encourage exchanges. When I had some responsibility for these matters I tried to stress the importance of exchanges. Here, the Government have an opportunity to give some reality to what has been said over a long period. I hope that they will provide this small encouragement for exchanges and so, to a minor degree, mitigate the harm which I sincerely believe the other provisions of the Bill will cause.

Mr. C. W. Gibson: I think that in our discussion we are inclined to forget that the heading to the new Clause is:
Provisions to facilitate exchange of controlled dwellings.
That is what what we are talking about. All the rather cruel social philosophy which the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) trotted out had nothing whatever to do with the Amendment. Moreover, as a matter of practical housing administration, the hon. Member was completely wrong.
We are asking that the new Clause inserted in the Bill in another place shall be given teeth by giving the benefit of the compulsion of the county court, which is already applied in the Bill in several cases, to the tenant. We think that what is good enough for the tenant is quite good enough for the landlord, especially when we discover that even before the Bill becomes law landlords are withholding properties from letting.
We are told that there is a tremendous need for exchanges—I agree that there is —and that there is such a demand that landlords can let their properties whenever they like. Yet landlords are withholding them. I have here a photograph of an advertisement appearing in a well-known newspaper. It reads:
This property to be let when the new Rent Act becomes operative. For full particulars, apply…
to the agent, to whom I do not propose to give any publicity.
This was an advertisement of property in the London area. Landlords have

properties which could be let—hon. Gentleman opposite agree that they ought to be occupied by people who badly need houses—and yet, in spite of the fact that their hearts are said to be bleeding for the poor working man who badly needs a home, they are holding up lettings, and they even have face enough to state it in their advertisements, knowing that as they will be new lettings the properties will, in any case, be decontrolled and so they can charge any rents that the market can bear.
Hon. Members opposite may think that that is all right. We do not. That illustrates the vast difference between their social philosophy and ours. We think that the tenant is as entitled to a fair deal as the owner. If the hon. Member for Henley presses me, I will give him a list of profits and dividends paid by property companies this year.

Mr. Hay: I am not sure what dividends have to do with the Amendment. I object to the hon. Member saying that there is something intrinsically wrong in the market. The market will provide a correct level of rents for property which people can afford.

Mr. Gibson: To leave the necessities of life to what the hon. Member and his hon. Friends call the market is a mad philosophy and has produced all the misery, poverty and hunger which the world suffers. I want to alter that position. I am a Socialist who wants to see Socialism applied in this and other countries, and that means common public ownership of property like housing and land. In the meantime, we have not got as far as that, but we have managed to persuade a Tory Government to insert a provision purporting to ease transfers between tenants. We think that it does nothing of the sort.
I have some experience of these matters. As hon. Members know, I was for many years a member of the London County Council Housing Committee and for many years an officer of it. London County Council has always done its utmost to encourage transfers. Even when the Tories were in control there were many transfers every year. Before the war the L.C.C. transferred its tenants at the rate of about 5,000 a year, but only a tiny minority was transferred to privately-owned property.
The usual experience is that the owner of an empty property is not prepared to take another tenant from the L.C.C. or a borough council because he feels that he loses some control. Is there any likelihood that the Bill will improve that position? The Bill provides that the landlord must agree before a transfer can take place. Why should the landlord agree? The Bill was introduced to help landlords and the Property Owners' Federation did its utmost in its propaganda for the Bill. The Bill provides very much for the property owners. Why should they give up their right to squeeze the market to the utmost, even if tenants bleed in the process? Of course, they will not do that and an advertisement appearing on the hoardings in London proves that.
If the Government really want to help tenants affected by the Bill in places like London, where—as hon. Members opposite, in their quiet moments, admit—there is a tremendous housing shortage and where the mere change from one tenancy to another can do a great deal to alleviate the position, there must be teeth in the Clause. Experience shows that unless such a Clause has teeth, nothing will happen and that landlords will wait until property is decontrolled and they are able to charge the 300, 400 or 500 per cent. increases which will be charged in places like Chelsea.

9.0 p.m.

The other place has not gone far enough with this provision. If the Government are to help the exchange of tenancies in London and other large cities they must make it possible, if the landlord unreasonably withholds his consent or imposes unreasonable conditions so that the tenant and the landlord cannot agree, for the tenant to have the right to go to the county court and for the county court to decide. I do not expect any very great success even at the county court—but I may be rather suspicious of the legal fraternity. At any rate, it will give the tenant a chance to fight and to get a reasonable transfer arrangement made if he possibly can.

After all, it is the tenant who is going to the county court and not the landlord, and presumably the tenant will have to pay the bill. What we suggest should be done is so obviously reasonable that I

am surprised that the Government did not insert the provision in the other place, and are, apparently, to resist it this evening. If they do, it will be only another illustration of the fundamental lack of concern of the party opposite for the welfare of the ordinary people.

Mr. Barnett Janner: I cannot understand how hon. Members opposite have the effrontery to refuse my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment. What are they offering in the Lords Amendment?—absolutely nothing. Since when has a landlord been unable to agree with a tenant in regard to a transfer if he wants to? The Lords Amendment merely says that if the landlord likes he can allow tenants to exchange, and if he does not like he need not. What utter humbug to introduce into a Bill something which means nothing. As the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) knows, the Lords Amendment means nothing without that of my hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Hay: As the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said in opening the discussion, the Lords Amendment enables the exchange or assignment of statutory tenancies. The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) now says that it means nothing. He ought to listen to an explanation of what it means if he does not know. It means that statutory tenancies can be assigned. That is the whole point of the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Janner: I am obliged to the hon. Member for trying to help me. Of course I know that a landlord could make the tenancy a statutory tenancy if he chose, without compulsion. He could let the house for as long as he wanted. If he is a landlord who does not want to turn out his tenant he can allow him to stop there as long as he likes, but the Lords Amendment without my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment is nonsense because, in effect, it says that if the landlord refuses to exchange he refuses, and there is an end of the matter.
Are we as a Parliament going to hold ourselves up to ridicule throughout the country by accepting a Lords Amendment which means nothing? It does not carry the law one step further; it does not provide anything which is not already


within the possibilities of an agreement between a landlord and his tenant; it merely says that if the landlord likes he can make it a statutory tenancy and if he does not he need not. That is the present situation, in any case. There is nothing to prevent a landlord entering into an agreement with the tenant and saying to him, "I will let you these premises on similar conditions to those which will prevail in respect of any houses at present controlled." Who will stop him from doing it? All that the Lords Amendment says is that a landlord can do what he is already able to do.
This situation means one of two things; either the Government are deliberately throwing dust in the eyes of the people or they have walked into a trap of their own in believing that they are doing something when in fact they are doing nothing.

Mr. H. Hynd: Or providing work for lawyers.

Mr. Janner: Were that the case it might be commendable, but I do not think it does even that. It is so absurd that no lawyer would dream of going to court with a case. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] All he would say is that it is absolute nonsense and bound to fail or to succeed as the case might be.
I am advancing what I believe to be a perfectly serious point. An Amendment of this sort would add nothing and detract nothing from the present position. That is why we on this side of the House are asking, "Why not accept our Amendment?" I am glad that the Minister has returned to the Chamber. I ask him what he intends to do. He tells us he has made a concession. He says that we have managed to persuade him that the question of exchange is an important matter, and indeed it is. Not only is it important from the point of view of a home, but it is important from the point of view of industry. Many people are being prevented from taking employment in certain districts because they cannot get accommodation and they cannot exchange accommodation.
I will give an illustration from my own constituency where there are people who were engaged in the knitted glove industry. I have raised the matter in this House time after time and asked for help

for them in order that the industry may be preserved. It is declining very rapidly and people engaged in it have to find other employment. Such employment may be available in a different district. In most cases, they can find other people willing to exchange accommodation with them for various reasons, perhaps to be nearer to their families or to their work. It is an important matter from an industrial point, so why not compel the landlords to act in this matter unless it is unreasonable to do so; unless, for example, the prospective tenant is a bad tenant, or cannot pay or for some other reason? But if the prospective tenant is a decent fellow, prepared to do the same as the sitting tenant, what does the landlord lose if he agrees to an exchange? The only way he can lose is that instead of the house continuing to be controlled it becomes decontrolled.
If the house becomes decontrolled, it means that what the Government have been talking about—that there is a free market and he will not be able to get a higher rental—is proved to be nonsense; because the whole object of this. as we see it, is to decontrol property as rapidly as possible. Hon. Members should remember that it is not a question merely of decontrolling houses above a certain rateable value. As soon as it becomes vacant, every house becomes decontrolled. People are labouring under a misunderstanding in this matter. They think that control is continuing for those houses below a rateable value of £40 in London and £30 elsewhere. That is utter nonsense. The houses are already three-quarters decontrolled, or will be the moment this Bill becomes law, because as soon as a tenant goes out of a house it is decontrolled and any rent may be charged.
That means that if people wish to exchange houses—and under our Amendment the landlord would be compelled to allow them to do so—they are in the position of having to go into this great open market about which the Government are so optimistic. If the Government are right, if they are attempting to show the country that exchange will be useful and will protect the tenant, and if they are right about the free market, why put the Lords Amendment in at all?
This is pure bluff. It is a clear attempt to make the country believe that the


Government are doing something when they are doing nothing. If that is not the case, the Minister must concede the point that we are now asking for. He must say that exchange shall become possible for those who are in a position to interchange their places without causing any hardship to the landlord except that of not being able to obtain greater rent. I understand that that is what the Minister wants; so let him not try to maintain a foolish Amendment of the House of Lords but amend it in such a way that is really becomes a practical proposition.

Sir I. Horobin: We have spent a great deal of time on a matter which is of great importance, but whether we accept the Lords Amendment unamended or amended as is now proposed, it will amount to very little. As long as there is this very large difference between the value of a controlled house and an uncontrolled house the scope for exchange is very limited. There are perfectly good reasons which one could elaborate. There are matters involving persons who are on the local authority housing list, and matters connected with the immediate financial interest of the landlord.
Only two things can be done, or at least are worth trying. We could have something like the Lords Amendment without the second half, thus saying to the landlord, "You are giving up either the prospect of early decontrol, or of taking on tenants whom you would like to come to you." There is nothing particularly against that, except perhaps that they are young and might stay longer and the landlord could get a reasonable price agreed upon so as to make it worth his while to go for early decontrol. That would allow a monetary payment by agreement for the landlord to give up something. Otherwise, we could do what is, broadly speaking, now being proposed by the Opposition, which is to fill the houses with tenants that the landlords do not want.

Mr. Gibson: That is unreasonable.

Sir I. Horobin: Things being as they are, very few cases of that kind would get past the courts. The landlords affected would fight like tigers and make every objection, good and bad, that a lawyer could put up, to prevent the landlords being saddled with tenants that they

did not want. If they were so saddled, would the relationship between the landlord and tenant be happy and useful, in the general public interest, and the sort that it is desirable to have? The scope for these exchanges will be small while the big difference in value remains.
9.15 p.m.
I think we are spending a great deal of time discussing something which, in either event, will not get us very far. Under those circumstances, at this late stage I imagine that the Government are not likely to accept an Amendment which would only produce a mass of irritation and appeals and really not be worth the trouble it would produce. Therefore, for my part, although I frankly admit that the Lords Amendment will not lead to many exchanges, nevertheless the opportunities are so small and the objections are so great that it would be better to accept the Amendment as it comes to us.

Mr. Mitchison: Has not the hon. Member remembered that a provision of this sort has been in operation for thirty years now and has never produced the terrible consequences he anticipates?

Sir I. Horobin: Surely the hon. and learned Member must appreciate the complete difference there. There does exist this difference that the rent and conditions are freely negotiated in that case. The whole essence of the problem we are struggling with, on both sides of the House, in this matter of exchanges is that the terms of the statutory tenancy are not agreed terms. They are not a lease accepted between landlord and tenant as a fair market rent. They are imposed. I am not going to argue whether it is good that they should be imposed or not, but, in fact, they are imposed. The comparison with the ordinary law of property where there is an assignment of a lease is quite irrelevant to the difficult problem we are discussing.

Mr. S. Silverman: The hon. Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin) always disappoints the House, if he will allow me to say so with respect. He begins an elaborate speech and maintains a reasonable attitude for the first fifth of the speech, but then he becomes less and less reasonable and, in the end, he reaches a position which becomes frankly unintelligbile.
The hon. Member began by saying—and here he will find more agreement on this side of the House than among hon. Members opposite—that the Amendment proposed in another place is, by itself, virtually useless. It does very little more, if anything more, than put into statutory form the present position because, of course, if the landlord of a controlled house wants to consent to an exchange of tenancy he could always do it and could do so whether the Amendment adopted in another place were accepted by this House or not. It makes absolutely no difference. So far, I am completely with the hon. Member—

Sir I. Horobin: I have not said that.

Mr. Silverman: What the hon. Member said was that the change made in another place would have very little effect.

Sir I. Horobin: Sir I. Horobinindicated assent.

Mr. Silverman: That is what I thought the hon. Member was saying. It was in the second part of his speech that I found his argument to be unintelligible. Having said what is perfectly true, that the Amendment made in another place made little difference to the law, he went on to say that the Amendment we propose would make little difference to the actual position in any case, but there he was quite patently wrong. It is one thing to say that if the landlord consents the change may take place and will have certain effects, when that always would have been the position. It is quite a different thing to say that the landlord shall agree to the change unless he has reasonable grounds for not agreeing to it. That is precisely what the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) sought in his opposition to the Amendment. That is what he means by saying that our Amendment introduced an element of compulsion. If it does introduce an element of compulsion whereas before there was no element of compulsion, it really becomes unintelligible to say that there is no difference between the one and the other. If one is an element of compulsion and the other is not, there is all the difference in the world between them, both as a matter of law and in view of the practical result.
What we have to look at is to see whether the hon. Gentleman is right when he says that there is no element of compulsion. Of course there is. If we say to a landlord, "You shall consent to this

unless you can satisfy some reasonable third party in a third party judgment, in a court of law, that you have reasonable grounds for not consenting to it," it is merely playing with words to say that there is no element of compulsion. Of course there is.

Sir I. Horobin: I was not arguing that.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Gentleman is really trying to have the best of both worlds. He may be enjoying himself, but as I said to one of his hon. Friends on another occasion, it is not at all clear that he is laughing at the right joke.

Sir I. Horobin: The hon. Gentleman is always the right joke.

Mr. Silverman: That, of course, is the kind of remark one expects from the hon. Member. Perhaps I may address the rest of my argument to other hon. Members of the House who, I hope, will listen to it with some attention. I am trying to deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Henley that not merely would this Amendment introduce an element of compulsion but that there would be something wrong in introducing an element of compulsion.
What I tried to say to him in the course of his speech was that although there is an element of compulsion involved in my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment it is not a new thing in law. The hon. Gentleman was trying to say that there was no analogy in that portion of the law in which the element of compulsion has always been and the present section of the law of landlord and tenant in which we are seeking to introduce it. I follow his argument but I do not agree with him. I think that there is the closest possible analogy. The only difference he suggests in the case of a lease is that die rent has been freely negotiated but in the case of a statutory tenancy the rent has not been freely negotiated.
The hon. Member thought it would make only little difference to the amount involved in freeing it from control because, he said, we could always trust the working of the market to produce a just result. That is his point. When I asked why, then, we had any element of control, he was frank enough to say, "Why do we?" He made it perfectly clear that he would abolish all control of all rents as soon as he had the opportunity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) must therefore modify his suspicion of lawyers. I remind him of the tombstone on which someone wrote, "Here lies John Smith, a lawyer and an honest man"; and someone else asked, "Why did they bury them both in the same grave?"
The hon. Member has given his answer. He is a lawyer and an honest man, and he states his position clearly; he states, "I do not believe in control at all". But the Government do believe in control.

Mr. Ede: Not very hard.

Mr. Silverman: Or if they do not believe in it, they are not as honest as all their supporters and would not be as frank as the hon. Member for Henley.
Coming back to the question whether there is a complete analogy apart from this exception—if it is an exception, and I do not think it is an exception at all—for more than thirty years it has been the rule that a leaseholder, even though his lease contains a covenant under which he is not entitled to part with his lease or his premises without the consent of his landlord, is nevertheless not bound by that freely negotiated condition. The lessor and the lessee, the landlord and the tenant, have made their bargain and both of them, the tenant included, have agreed to a covenant that they shall not assign their lease without the consent of the landlord. Thirty years ago Parliament intervened to change that and said, "In spite of your agreement that you will not assign your lease without the consent of your landlord, nevertheless you may do so, provided that the man to whom you wish to assign it is a reasonable and responsible tenant. In spite of the covenant, if your landlord refuses to agree, then you may go to the court and the court will confirm your assignment without his agreement".
No one has ever suggested in the course of the debate that there is anything unfair about that. Nobody has suggested that it ought to be altered. The hon. Member has never objected to the form of compulsion about that. It is the same element of compulsion as would have to be introduced into this field by

the Amendment now proposed—exactly the same thing, except that the hon. Member's differentiation works the other way round, because we are dealing here in the case of the lease with a covenant freely negotiated, and even in that case the law now says that the covenant is unenforceable in the case of a responsible and reasonable tenant.
All that my hon. and learned Friend is suggesting by the Amendment is that we shall give to a controlled tenant, who is entitled as long as he behaves himself to remain in those premises at that rent for as long as he likes, the same right as we give to a lessee of non-controlled premises to assign his lease without the landlord's consent, even where he has agreed not to do so.
To allow the one to remain and to object to the other on the ground that it is unreasonable compulsion is merely —I am afraid I must say this—another instance of the way in which the Tory Party look differently at equitable considerations according to the class of the population affected by them. In the case of a shopkeeper or tenant of an office bound by a lease, the hon. Member would never dream of allowing a landlord unreasonably to withhold his consent to a change of tenancy. He thinks that is absolutely right, and yet he holds up his hands in horror when my hon. and learned Friend suggests that exactly the same law should apply to a controlled tenant. Rather, he did not hold up his hands in horror; he said it was unnecessary.
He went on to say that there was a difference and that the difference was the extra rent, no matter how big or how small the extra rent involved. In the case of the office tenant or the shopkeeper or the lessee of a dwelling-house, however, there is no question of any increased rent. The assignment would have to be at exactly the same rent. Whether he realises it or not, the hon. Member's opposition to the Amendment is nothing more and nothing less than a further instance of the class distinction which dominates the whole of this Government's approach to social questions of this kind. I hope that my hon. Friends will persist in their Amendment and, if it is resisted, carry it into the Division Lobby.

9.30 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): The House will agree, I think, that we have had a very fair and wide debate on this subject of exchanges. Although the debate has made clear some of the political differences between the two sides, it would probably be more useful if I were to deal with the two propositions which we are discussing, that embodied in the Lords Amendment and the Amendment to it moved by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), on a rather more practical basis. The House is interested in this question rather from the point of view of what we can do to promote exchanges than with the politics which one associates with the question.
When this Bill had its Report stage in the House, two Amendments were put down by hon. Members of Her Majesty's Opposition, one for exchanges with the consent of the landlords, and another, a Schedule, providing for appeal to the county court against the landlord's refusal—

Mr. Mitchison: Unreasonable.

Mr. Bevins: —against the landlord's unreasonable refusal to give consent. I made it quite clear on that occasion that the Government were prepared to consider the principle of the Amendment and the related Schedule in the name of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren), which embodied the proposition in favour of voluntary exchanges. The Lords Amendment now before us is certainly designed to implement the undertaking which I gave on behalf of my right hon. Friend at that point.
The House would not, I think, at this juncture wish me to refer in any detail to the new Clause now before us in the form of the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Janner: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that subject, would he answer the question I put? What is the difference which is created by the Lords Amendment which cannot today be brought about by an agreement between the two parties?

Mr. Bevins: If the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) will just be a little patient, I will answer that question.
What is provided in the Lords Amendment is perfectly simple. It enables a statutory tenant to assign a tenancy to any other person with the consent of the landlord. That would allow exchanges between one statutory tenant and another, between one statutory tenant and an owner-occupier, and also between a statutory tenant and a local authority tenant. The various subsections deal with the question of succession. I need only say here that subsection (3) makes it clear that, in certain cases, the landlord can agree to treat the incoming tenant as the first statutory tenant, although, in fact, he may be the second, because there may be circumstances, for instance, where an elderly couple constitute the incoming tenants, when the landlord would he willing to treat the matter in that way.
Subsection (4), which has been referred to by two of my hon. Friends, would make it unlawful either for landlords or for tenants to require premiums for these transactions. In spite of what has been said in our debate today, it is still the view of my right hon. Friend that it would be wrong to allow incoming tenants to make payments in the form of sweeteners to landlords to encourage them to agree to exchanges.
These provisions, as embodied in the Lords Amendment, become necessary because, of course, Clause 10 (2) would, in the ordinary course of events, prevent an incoming tenant from getting a controlled tenancy. It is the view of my right hon. Friend that these provisions will facilitate exchanges, particularly in those classes of case where there is little or no difference between the dwellings' twice gross value and their market rent. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) rightly pointed out that to the extent that new rents approximate to free rents exchanges will be assisted.
To turn to the Amendment—

Mr. Janner: The hon. Member has not answered my point. What is there illegal in a landlord and a tenant making an arrangement which contains precisely the same kind of conditions as would prevail if it were a statutory tenancy?

Mr. Bevins: As I said before, if the hon. Member will be patient, I am coming to that point.
I should like to examine the terms of the Amendments of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering and his hon. Friends on a purely practical basis. The party opposite would give power to the county court, or to the appropriate court in Scotland, to dispense with the landlord's consent if it were unreasonably withheld or to modify any unreasonable condition imposed by the landlord. To the extent that that would enable the county court to override the objections of landlords, there can be no doubt that that introduces an element of compulsion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Henley was perfectly right to say what he did, and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) was quite right to underline that this represents an element of compulsion. He was right in spite of what was said by his hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) who, with rather a nice choice of words, referred to the expressions of my hon. Friend and of myself as so much cant. The fact is that if a county court is to be allowed to override a landlord's objections, that must represent an element of compulsion.
What is the position? Under Clause 10 (2), it is perfectly legal for the owner of a house to let it on such terms as the market allows when he secures vacant possession. He is entitled to let at a free rent to any prospective tenant to whom he decides to let. In many cases, the provisions of the Amendment would deprive the landlord of that right.
The question which the House has to ask itself this evening is this perfectly simple one—in what circumstances would a county court say that the landlord should not be allowed to seek a free rent from a tenant of his own choice? We have heard a lot about the iniquities of what has been proposed from this side this evening, but I have listened carefully to all that has been said in this debate and I have not heard a single hon. Member opposite attempt to answer that question, because, of course, it is unanswerable.
How could a county court say that a landlord was behaving unreasonably by refusing to take a tenant at twice the gross value in rent? It is necessary only to pose these questions in their simplicity for the House to see that the provisions

of the Amendment would almost certainly be ineffective in practice. Indeed, the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) got rather near to admitting that, because he said that even if these Amendments were accepted he was not very optimistic about whether the effects would be very beneficial.

Mr. Mitchison: The hon. Gentleman must have forgotten that a provision of this sort, including cases referring to the Rent Acts, has been administered by the courts for thirty years now without the least difficulty and with a well-established line of authorities as to what these words mean.

Mr. Bevins: That may well be the case. I would not dispute that statement from the hon. and learned Member for one moment, but I put it to the House that these alternative provisions have to be considered against the policy for which the Rent Bill stands.

Hon. Members: Ah!

Mr. MacDermot: Since he appears to be moving from the point, may I put a question to the hon. Gentleman? He is suggesting that no county court judge could consider that it was unreasonable for a landlord to refuse consent because he wanted to re-let at an increased rental. Does the hon. Gentleman consider that the landlord is only being allowed to charge an unreasonable rent when the rent he is being allowed to charge is the controlled rent? if the controlled rent is a reasonable rent, why should not the county court judge think it reasonable that the landlord should continue to charge that rent?

Mr. Bevins: Surely the position is quite simple. What is being argued from the other side of the House, though not very convincingly, is that if the Opposition Amendments were to be accepted and county court judges were enabled to say whether or not a landlord's consent was reasonably or unreasonably withheld, obviously that could only be done on the ground that it was a matter of convenience for the incoming and outgoing tenants that it should happen. But in the last resort it would be a matter which involved the rent that those people were prepared to pay.
If the Opposition Amendments were accepted, it would mean that judges in


the county courts in England would be empowered to drive a coach and horses through Clause 10 of the Bill as it stands. And a matter basic and fundamental to the Bill is the belief that it is desirable on vacant possession of the house that decontrol should take place and the landlord should be a free agent to secure in a free market a tenant of his own choice.
It is our view on this side of the House that the provisions embodied in the new Clause brought to us from another place go as far as a Government ought reasonably to go in facilitating exchanges and that it would be wrong to recommend the House to accept the principles of the Opposition Amendments, which would be at variance with the principles in which we on this side believe.

Mr. Julius Silverman: The hon. Gentleman has put the point that no county court would find it reasonable to expect a landlord to have a new controlled tenancy when he could get vacant possession, but that is not the case that will go before the county court at all. The case would be whether the present tenant should remain at the same controlled rent, or whether he should be able to assign a sub-tenancy to a reasonable tenant at the same controlled rent. This is not a question of vacant possession versus controlled rent but of one controlled rent versus another.

Mr. Bevins: With all respect, the question which the county court judge would have to consider would be whether or not the withholding of consent by a landlord was reasonable or unreasonable. Quite simply, my right hon. Friend's view is that that puts on county court judges a task which they could not discharge, in the nature of the case, for what would be the test of "unreasonable"? I have already invited hon. Gentlemen opposite to give us some criterion as to what unreasonable would be.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. S. Silverman: Since the hon. Gentleman has invited someone to say what would be the test of unreasonableness, may I say to him that on the exchange of statutory tenancies no question of rent would arise? The test of reasonableness would be whether the

proposed new tenant was a reliable person, likely to prove a good tenant or not. That has been the test for thirty years.

Mr. Bevins: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, the question of rent would arise. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes, in circumstances where a landlord thought he had a prospect of his property becoming vacant, and he foresaw the prospect of getting the market value or the free value of that house, obviously that would be a consideration.

Mr. John Hynd: The Minister has given a very weak answer to the Amendments—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer?"] No answer at all—but he has said one or two things that must be answered, even at this hour. The hon. Gentleman said that we have to consider these alternative propositions against the background of the policy for which the Bill stands. We have many ideas about the policy for which the Bill stands, but the Government themselves have repeatedly given two reasons for it.
The first reason was that they were trying to facilitate the utilisation of the maximum housing space in the country in which, of course, the matter of exchanges is one of the key points. The second was that they were concerned about the state of disrepair of houses in this country, and they were anxious that through this Bill the landlords would be in a better position to finance the repairs. That was the reason given for the increased rent and the decontrol.
On the point we are discussing now, if we consider it in the light of those two propositions, the case argued in Committee—which has been argued throughout the stages of this Bill in regard to exchanges—and the principle which the Minister himself admitted in Committee, on which he gave us a promise that he would try to bring in a provision to facilitate repairs, was the well-known fact that landlords throughout the country, because of rent control, have been refusing to allow tenants to exchange into controlled houses so that they could force them out and get decontrol. That is the case, as everybody knows. We know it is a serious situation and there have been many attempts to try to find a solution. It was because of this situation that the Government gave the assurance which was given in Committee.
The new Clause does not in any way facilitate these exchanges, as has been admitted, and I do not think that whatever the Minister says will convince anyone on either side of the House that it will do so, because of the factor of the landlord's consent. It has been pointed out over and over again that tenants can exchange now if they can get the consent of the landlord, and the only thing that has been preventing exchanges so far has been the withholding of landlord's consent.
Therefore, in view of the fact that the new Clause makes no difference to the present position, the Minister has no right to stand at that Box and say, as he said, that the new Clause is certainly implementing the undertaking he gave upstairs in Committee or, as he also said, that he made it clear on that occasion that the Government were prepared to consider this principle.
The Minister has asked us what are the considerations that the court can examine if an application is made for an exchange which is opposed by the land-

lord. There are two answers. The first is whether or not a reasonable rent is being offered. The other point concerns the matter of repairs. If a landlord goes to the court and submits to it that he cannot consent to an exchange because the rent under the control arrangements would not be sufficient to enable him to maintain the house in good repair, I suggest that the court might have reasonable grounds for giving the landlord his case.

Therefore, because of the complete absence of any justification by the Minister, and because of the reasonableness of our effort to incorporate in the Bill a provision which would in some way facilitate exchanges, though not to the extent that we would wish, I am determined to contest the matter in the Lobby, and I hope that my hon. Friends will do likewise.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Lords Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 242, Noes 313.

McKay, John (Wallsend)
Prentice, R. E.
Swingler, S. T.


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Istes)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Sylvester, G. O.


Macpherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Price, Philips (Glouostershire, W.)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Mahon, Simon
Probert, A. R.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Mainwaring, W. H.
Proctor, W. T.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Pryde, D. J.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Mason, Roy
Randall, H. E.
Thornton, E.


Mayhew, C. P.
Rankin, John
Tomney, F.


Mellish, R. J.
Redhead, E. C.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Messer, Sir F.
Reeves, J.
Usborne, H. C.


Mikardo, Ian
Reid, William
Viant, S. P.


Mitchison, G. R.
Rhodes, H.
Warbey, W. N.


Monslow, W.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Watkins, T. E.


Moody, A. S.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Weitzman, D.


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Gaernarvon)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert(Lewis'm, S.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)



Mort, D. L.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Moss, R.
Ross, William
West, D. G.


Moyle, A.
Royle, C.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Mulley, F. W.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Short, E. W.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Oliver, G. H.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Wigg, George


Oram, A. E.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Wilcock, Croup Capt. C. A. B.


Orbach, M,
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Oswald, T.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Williams, David (Neath)


Owen, W. J.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Padley, W. E.
Snow, J. W.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Paget, R. T.
Sorensen, R. W.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Sparks, J. A.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Palmer, A. M. F.
Steele, T.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Winterbottom, Richard


Pargiter, G. A.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. (Ipswich)
Woof, R. E.


Parker, J.
Stonehouse, John
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Parkin, B. T.
Stones, W. (Consett)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Paton, John
Strachey, Rt. Hon, J.
Zilliacus, K.


Pentland, N.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)



Plummer, Sir Leslie
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Popplewell, E.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Browne, J. Nixon (Craighton)
 Erroll, F. J.


Aitken, W. T.
Bryan, P.
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Bullus, Wing commander E. E.
Finlay Graeme


Alport, C. J. M.
Burden, F. F. A.
Fisher, Nigel


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (SaffronWalden)
Forrest, G.


Arbuthnot, John
Campbell, Sir David
Fort, R.


Armstrong, C. W.
Carr, Robert
Foster, John


Ashton, H.
Cary, Sir Robert
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'ombe &amp; Lonsdale)


Atkins, H. E.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Freeth, Denzil


Baldcok, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Cole, Norman
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.


Baldwin, A. E.
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Gammans, Lady


Balniel, Lord
Cooke, Robert
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Barber, Anthony
Cooper, A. E.
George, J. C. (Pollok)


Barlow, Sir John
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Gibson-Watt, D.


Barter, John
Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Glover, D.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Godber, J. B.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Goodhart, Philip


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Cunningham, Knox
Gough, C. F. H.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Currie, G. B. H.
Gower, H. R.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Dance, J. C. G.
Graham, Sir Fergus


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Davidson, Viscountess
Grant, W. (Woodside)


Bidgood, J. C.
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. D. (Nantwich)


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Deedes, W. F.
Green, A.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Gresham Cooke, R.


Bishop, F. P.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Grimond, J


Black, C. W.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Grimston, Hon, John (St. Albans)


Body, R. F.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Grimstone, Sir Robers (Westbury)


Boothby, Sir Robert
Drayson, G. B.
Grosvenor, Lt,-Col. R. G.


Bossom, Sir Alfred
du Cann, E. D. L.
Gurden, Harold


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Duthie, W. S.
Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Braine, B. R.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. (Kelvingrove)
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
EI1iott,R.W.(N'castle upon Tyne,N.)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Harvey, Air Cdre, A. V. (Maeclesfd)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Errington, Sir Eric
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)







Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Renton, D. L. M.


Hay, John
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Rippon, A. G. F.


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
McAdden, S. J.
Robertson, Sir David


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Henderson, John (Cathoart)
McKibbin, A. J.
Robson-Brown, W.


Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Hesketh, R. F.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Roper, Sir Harold


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Russell, R. S.


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Sharples, R. C.


Hobson, John (Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Shepherd, William


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Holt, A. F.
Maddan, Martin
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Hope, Lord John
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Hornoastle)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Hornby, R. P.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Soames, Christopher


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Speir, R. M.


Horobin, Sir Ian
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Fiorenoe
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Howard, Hon. Creville (St. Ives)
Marshall, Douglas
Stevens, Geoffrey


Howard, John (Test)
Mathew, R.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Mawby, R. L.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Storey, S.


Hurd, A. R.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Hutchison, A. M. C. (Edinburgh, S.)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark(E'b'gh, W.)
Moore, Sir Thomas
Summers, Sir Spencer


Hutchison, Sir James (Sootstoun)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Hyde, Montgomery
Mott-Radolyffe, Sir Charles
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Nabarro, G, D. N.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Iremonger, T. L.
Nairn, D, L, S.
Teeling, W.


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Neave, Airey
Temple, John M.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Nicholls, Harmar
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Jennings, J, C. (Burton)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Nugent, G. R. H,
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Oakshott, H. D.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W.D.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Joseph, Sir Keith
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Vane, W. M. F.


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Kaberry, D.
Osborne, C.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Keegan, D.
Page, R. G.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Kerr, H. W.
Partridge, E,
Wall, Major Patrick


Kershaw, J. A.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Kimball, M.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Kirk, P. M.
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Lambton, Viscount
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Pitman, I. J.
Webbe, Sir H.


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Leather, E. H. C.
Pott, H. P.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Leavey, J. A.
Powell, J. Enoch
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Leburn, W. G.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E, A, H.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Wood, Hon. R.


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Woollam, John Victor


Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Profumo, J. D.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Ralkes, Sir Victor



Llewellyn, D. T.
Ramsden, J. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G.(Sutton Coldfield)
Rawlinson, Peter
Mr. Richard Thompson and


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Redmayne, M.
Mr. Hughes-Young.


Longden, Gilbert
Rees-Davies, W. R.

10.0 p.m.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—[Mr.Brooke.]

Mr. Mitchison: When moving my Amendment, I made it quite clear that I had some comments to make on the Lords Amendment. I can make them quite shortly. They come to this. In Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary,

in a passage which I read just now, undertook in terms to put into effect the Amendment then before the House, namely, that in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren). That Amendment imported a Schedule that we proposed to add to the Bill, and the Schedule referred in terms both to contractual and statutory tenancies.
It was of considerably wider effect than the Lords Amendment. It allowed,


for instance, two contractual tenants of houses subject to rent control to exchange their tenancies with the landlords' consent and to maintain the controlled character of those tenancies. The Lords Amendment falls far short of that, because it deals only with statutory tenancies, and all it does, in effect, is to remove a rather technical difficulty in the exchange of statutory tenancies.
I say, without mincing my words or taking too long about them, that the Government have not carried out the undertaking given in this House on Report. The Lords Amendment falls far short of what the Government undertook to do, which was to put into effect the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough.

Mr. David Weitzman: On at least two occasions in the last discussion that we had the Parliamentary Secretary promised to explain what the Lords Amendment does which a landlord cannot do by agreement. He did not give an answer then; perhaps he will do so now.

Mr. Bevins: If I may speak, with the permission of the House, the hon. and learned Member has suggested that the Lords Amendment does not represent the implementation of what was offered on Report. At that time I gave an undertaking on behalf of my right hon. Friend that we accepted the principle of the Amendment and the Schedule in the name of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren). We take the view that we have implemented the promise given on that occasion.

Mr. Mitchison: I must read to the hon. Gentleman once more exactly what he said. I said to him:
Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to be undertaking on behalf of the Government to insert in another place a Clause to the effect of the new Schedule standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Welling. borough (Mr. Lindgren)?
That is the Schedule which related both to contractual and to statutory tenancies. The hon. Gentleman's answer was:
The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right.… "—[0FFICIAL REPORT, 27th March. 1957; Vol. 567, c. 1172.]
This new Clause does not carry out that undertaking.

Mr. Bevins: I disagree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. In the view of

my right hon. Friend this Clause implements the undertaking given to the House.
[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] With great respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, may I say that it is all very well for him to become vehement and say that this Clause deals only with statutory tenants and not contractual tenants. But I assure hon. Members that I have taken most careful advice on the point and I am informed that the Clause as it stands does not refer to contractual tenants because it is not necessary to do so. It is not necessary to give power to a controlled contractual tenant to assign the tenancy with the consent of the landlord, because in that case the landlord can always consent as it is a contractual tenancy, and the incoming tenant would have the same rights as a statutory tenant when the contractual tenancy ended. I am assured that that is the correct legal position, and therefore in that sense the Government are giving effect to the promise which was given.
In reply to the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman), the view of my right hon. Friend is perfectly clear, that before this Rent Bill becomes law it is generally the practice of owners of house property approached to agree to an exchange to decline to do so simply on the grounds that they desire vacant possession with a view to selling; as generally they are doing badly under rent control. Because of this Bill and its effects on rents, both controlled and de-controlled, the margin will be very much less than it was and to that extent the change will be inherent.

Mr. Weitzman: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question I put? What is it that this Clause does that a landlord cannot do by agreement?

Mr. Bevins: As I understand it, a landlord cannot create a statutory tenancy by agreement.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause C.—(PRIVATE STREET WORKS TO COUNT AS IMPROVEMENTS.)

Lords Amendment proposed: In page 13 line 11, after the Amendment last inserted, insert Clause C:

C.—(1) The following provisions of this section shall have effect for the purposes of section five of this Act or, in Scotland, for the purposes of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section two of the Act of 1920.

(2) Where works have been carried out on a street under—

(a)section one hundred and fifty of the Public Health Act, 1875, or
(b)the Private Street Works Act, 1892, or
(c)any of the enactments referred to in section one of the Local Government (Street Works) (Scotland) Act, 1956. or
(d)the corresponding provisions of any local Act,
and any dwelling having access to the street is the subject of a controlled tenancy, the amount of any expenditure incurred after the commencement of this Act by the landlord or a superior landlord in the carrying out of the works, or of any liability so incurred by the landlord or a superior landlord in respect of the works to the authority by whom they were carried out (whether the liability is dischargeable in a lump sum or by instalments, but in the case of instalments exclusive of interest) shall (whether or not apart from this section it would be so treated) be treated as expenditure incurred by the landlord or superior landlord on improvement as mentioned in subsection (1) of section five of this Act or, as the case may be, is paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section two of the Act of 1920:

Provided that if benefit accrues from the carrying out of the works not only to the dwelling but also to other premises of the landlord or superior landlord, the amount to be treated as aforesaid shall be so much only of the expenditure or liability as may be determined, by agreement in writing between the landlord and the tenant or by the county court, or in Scotland the sheriff, to be properly apportionable to the dwelling, having regard to the benefit accruing, from the carrying out of the works, to the dwelling and to the other premises.

(3) For the purposes of this section the amount of any expenditure shall be treated as diminished by the amount of any contribution made in respect thereof under any enactment.

(4)Subsection (3) of section five of this Act and the proviso to paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section two of the Act of 1920 shall not apply to any increase authorised by virtue of this section.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 51, at the beginning to insert:
Subject to the provisions of the following subsection".
Perhaps we might with this Amendment, discuss the next Amendment, in line 55, at the end to add:
(5) Notwithstanding anything in the last fore-, going subsection, the said subsection (3) and the said proviso mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, shall apply to an increase authorised by virtue of this section if the increase arises from any expenditure or liability incurred as a result of a request made under subsection (1) of section six of the New Streets Act, 1951, and of works carried out in consequence of that request.

After the discussion on the previous Amendments, I am not hopeful that the Government will give even the consideration we think should be given to this Amendment. The Amendment from another place is, again, an example of giving power to the landlord to make charges which, at present, he cannot make. I speak subject to correction, but I understand that the making up of private street works by a local authority is not a reason for a landlord to increase rent and charge the 8 per cent. of the cost to the tenant.
Under the present law, when a private street is made up the landlords have to bear the cost. The Lords Amendment gives landlords the right to add another increase to their rents, in addition to those provided for already in the Bill, in respect of the making up of a private street by the local authority. The Bill, therefore, will not only give the landlord double rent as a minimum, but will double the value of his property.
The effect of the Amendment is that where a landlord has asked the local authority to make up the street he shall not be entitled to make an increased charge of rent. We admit that the making up of the street and its maintenance by the local authority is at the cost of the ratepayers at large and will enhance the value of the property. Landlords will already have the right to evict tenants from houses which are over the stipulated rateable values; the Lords Amendment is an added inducement to them to impose greater insecurity upon tenants than now exist.
I do not want to labour the point, in view of the lateness of the hour. Our suggestion is that where the landlord has requested the local authority to make up the street he should not be allowed to make a charge to the tenants.

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. H. Brooke: I hope that the House will permit me to explain the Clause. The 1920 Act already covers the case in which a landlord incurs expenditure in making up a road. The Lords Amendment brings that position up to date and enables it to cover not only that case, but the case where the local authority makes up the road and charges the landlord with the cost. There is the further


case where houses are converted into flats, a contingency not covered by the 1920 Act.
The Lords Amendment extends the provisions of that Act to cover that case, also. It is important, because a house of some size may have gardens fronting on to the road and be converted into flats. Indeed, it is likely to be so converted as the result of the operation of the Bill.
The proposed Amendment to the Lords Amendment is concerned with the case where the landlord makes up the road to get it taken over by the local authority, and would provide an appeal to the county court against any amount being added to the rents in respect of money which has been spent in that way.
10.15 p.m.
I see that the Opposition is not challenging the case where the local authority itself makes up the road. As understood it, at any rate on this Amendment, the Opposition is not seeking to give the tenant a right of appeal to the county court in the case where the local authority itself takes the initiative, makes up the road and charges the landlord with it, but only in the case where the landlord makes up the road himself.
The Amendment refers to Section 6 of the New Streets Act, 1951, which, if I remember rightly, was a Private Member's Bill which was carried through under a different Administration and, I believe, supported by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). Under Section 6 of the 1951 Act the amount of the work is to be such as the local authority requires
before declaring the street to be a highway repairable by the inhabitants at large.
That is to say, it gives the local authority the power to say how much work needs to be done. I cannot see the distinction the Opposition seeks to draw between the case where the local authority makes up the street itself and charges the frontagers and the case, to which it is directing this Amendment, where the landlord makes up the street:
as the local authority require before declaring the street to be a highway repairable by the inhabitants at large.
It seems to me that, in both instances, the position is the same. If the hon. Member presses the Amendment it appears that he will be seeking indirectly

to amend the New Streets Act, 1951, which was passed under a Government of which he was a member. I hardly think that that is a reasonable course to take. I hope I have shown in my short speech that I have given attention to the point he raised and tried to probe it, but I think there would be an inconsistency if he were to press the House to accept his Amendment.

Mr. Mitchison: If I may have the leave of the House, as I formally seconded the Amendment, may I say that the right hon. Gentleman has quite misunderstood our Amendment. Indeed, I really wonder whether he has read it. The point about the New Streets Act cases is that in those cases it is the landlord himself who, with his fellow frontagers, asks the local authority to do the work and, having asked, compels it to do so because it is bound by the terms of that Act, whenever it receives a request of that kind, to make up the road.
The difference we draw between that type of case and the ordinary Private Street Works Act case is that there ought to be a right of appeal when it is the landlord who with his fellows has set the machinery in motion. That is different from a case where the local authority is taking action, even if it is doing so at the request of the frontagers. It is still at its discretion and in performance of its duty. It is not a vitally important point, but it seems to be right and fair that there should be an appeal when it is the landlord who has made the move and obliged the local authority to take action. I think that there are more substantial objections to the new Clause as a whole.

Mr. H. Brooke: If I may have the leave of the House to reply to the hon. and learned Member, I want to show him that I have appreciated the point he has made. The fact is that Parliament in its wisdom has laid down in the 1951 Act the conditions under which local authorities ought to take over streets in built-up areas. The conditions will be in the memory of the hon. and learned Member. They are that the majority of the frontage owners want the street made up and certain other conditions. The need for making up the street flows from the fulfilment of those conditions.
To give the tenants the right to object to the need for street works would


really be the same as saying that even if the conditions that Parliament has laid down are fulfilled nevertheless the street ought never to have been taken over. I cannot think that any landlord will spend more than the local authority requires in making 4up a street. Therefore, I trust that the hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment.

Question, That these words be there inserted in the Lords Amendment, put
and negatived.

Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
In replying to the Opposition Amendment I briefly explained the purpose of this new Clause. It introduces no new principle. It is confined to bringing up to date the provision which is already contained in the 1920 Act, which enables an increase of rent to be made where the landlord himself spends money on the road The new Clause simply and solely extends that provision to two other cases, one where the local authority makes up the road and charges the landlord and the other where the property in question is divided up into flats or maisonettes.

Mr. Mitchison: As I understand the law at present—and I may be speaking incorrectly, but I hope not—I find that the cost of making up a road is not an improvement. I am looking at page 335 of Megarry's latest work. It seems to me that the Clause in its present form is certainly an extension of any ordinary idea of an improvement, and the right hon. Gentleman himself does not suggest that this particular provision existed previously. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that whenever the law is altered by this Bill it appears to be for the benefit of the landlord, and this particular alteration is absolutely typical of the attitude that the Government have taken throughout—to put a little bit more upon the tenant, and a little bit more upon him yet—and heaven help the man if his back breaks, because the Tory Party will not help him.

Mr. MacColl: I cannot rise to the level of emotion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). I also suspect that the right hon. Gentleman has again loaded the dice against the tenant. If I have misunderstood the position, I should like to

put this point to him and ask for his explanation. The marginal note in the new Clause says:
Private street works to count as improvements.
That is very nice, round, comprehensive and simple. If we look at the new Clause, it says that it only has effect in regard to the operation "of section five of this Act or" the equivalent Section of the Act of 1920. These both refer to questions where the landlord is to get more rent by counting street works to be improvements.
There are two provisions of the Bill where the tenant may benefit by improvements. One is the question of compensation for improvements in paragraph 5 of the Fourth Schedule, whereby a tenant who has paid for the improvements and is then evicted can claim compensation for the improvements he has done. There may not be many cases in which a tenant will have paid for private street works, because the charge is one upon the landlord, but when there are landlords who have no money—and there are many who say they have not and who in controlled property refuse to do any work on the house—there probably are cases when tenants in desperation have said that they want the street made up and, therefore, will pay for it out of their own pockets rather than flounder about in the mud.
If that is the position, if a tenant has actually paid from his own pocket what
should be the landlord's share of the private street works, does the definition of that as an improvement enable him to claim back his compensation, or is it limited only to the case where the landlord is getting his 8 per cent. increase in rent'?
The other case in which that might arise is in the question of the gross rateable value. In Part III of the Fifth Schedule, there is a provision which says that if the tenant has himself paid for improvements, the gross value can be reduced and, therefore, the rent limit reduced and the rateable value can be reduced and, therefore, the limit of decontrol reduced on the basis of that amount.
Does a private street work count as an improvement for those purposes? This is a point to which we should have an answer from the right hon. Gentleman. It seems to me that it does not count.


I do not see how one can read the Bill as saying that it does. If it does not count, we must face up to the meaning of this. It means that the Government have gone out of their way to get into the Bill an extension of the definition of "improvement" to enable them to grind out of the tenant the last halfpenny of rent increase for the 8 per cent., but that in the only two cases in the Bill where some concession could be made to the tenant they have not gone out of their way to make those concessions. That is what I suspect has happened. We should not let the Amendment pass until we have an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. H. Brooke: The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) quoted somebody whose name is Megarry and not Mehatty, at page 335. I think the hon. and learned Member will find that that was written before a case in 1956 which is not referred to. If I am rightly informed, Megarry cites a number of earlier cases but he does not cite a case in the Queen's Bench Division in 1956, in which the view was taken that an improvement need not be actually carried out on the site of the demised premises but could be regarded as an improvement within Section 2 (1, a) of the 1920 Act if it was for the benefit of the demised premises. I think that is the reply to the quotation that he was making.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but am I right in understanding that what he now proposes to put in as an improvement has never been an improvement before?

Mr. Brooke: As I read the 1920 Act —and so far as I know this has never gone to the Court of Appeal or to the House of Lords—and as I read the decision that was taken in 1956 in the High Court on a case of this kind, they go to show that the 1920 Act does provide that where the landlord at his own expense repairs a road, then he is entitled to charge 8 per cent. of the cost of the improvement.

Mr. Mitchison: What do we want a new Clause for?

Mr. Brooke: I hoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman had been listening

earlier, because I have already explained the matter twice.
The 1920 Act covers only the case where the landlord does the work himself at his own cost for a single house, but there are other cases which we must consider. One of them is just as frequent a case. It is where the local authority does the work and charges the landlord. It is just the same from the landlord's point of view so far as the cost is concerned. But that is not covered by the 1920 Act, and it is quite unreasonable that the landlord should be put in a different position though he has actually spent the same amount of money.
Neither does the 1920 Act cover the case where the house or building is, in fact, divided into separate dwellings. That, as I pointed out, was a case likely to become more frequent through the operation of the Bill which will encourage the conversion of larger houses. It therefore seemed desirable to bring the 1920 Act up to date.
The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) inquired what would happen under other Clauses of the Bill if, for some reason, the work was carried out at the expense of the tenant. The answer to that is that, normally, there is no cases where the tenant bears the cost, and, indeed, the hon. Gentleman himself granted that such a case would be rare. If the tenant is required to pay in such a case, then he can get the cost back by deduction from the rent, and so the matter is settled straight away.

Mr. MacColl: All this business about compensation and the reduction of the rateable value is based on the assumption that tenants very often take on landlords' burdens because the landlords, getting only the controlled rents, have not the resources. They do it themselves rather than not have it done. That is the sole basis on which either of these cases come in. It might equally well apply in the case of someone wanting a new street rather than have the thing held up. He says, "All right, you are not getting much rent. I will pay my share myself." But that is no reason why such a person should now have to pay extra rent.

Mr. Brooke: As I was pointing out to the hon. Gentleman and to the House, if the tenant does bear the cost he has his


immediate remedy. He can get back what he has spent by deduction from the rent. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's second question, street works will not count for gross value in connection with decontrol.

Mr. Lindgren: We contest the Minister's view that a public street is there purely for the benefit of the landlord and the tenant. It is there for the benefit of the public at large. The New

Division No. 139.]
AYES
110.35 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Duthie, W. S.
Hornby, R. P.


Aitken, W. T.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Horobin, Sir Ian


Alport, C. J. M.
Elliot Rt. Hon. W. E. (Kelvingrove)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Elliott, R.W.(N'oastle upon Tyne,N.)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)


Arbuthnot, John
Errington, Sir Eric
Howard, John (Test)


Armstrong, C. W.
Erroll, F. J.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Ashton, H.
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Finlay, Graeme
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.


Atkins, H. E.
Fisher, Nigel
Hulbert, Sir Norman


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Hurd, A. R.


Baldwin, A. E.
Forrest, G.
Hutchison, A. M. G. (Edinburgh, S.)


Balniel, Lord
Fort, R.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark(E'b'gh, W.)


Barber, Anthony
Foster, John
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)


Barlow, Sir John

Hyde, Montgomery


Barter, John
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Iremonger, T. L.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Freeth, Denzil
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Gammans, Lady
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Bidgood, J. C.
Gibson-Watt, D.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Glover, D.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Bishop, F. P.
Godber, J. B.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)


Black, C. W.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Joseph, Sir Keith


Body, R. F.
Goodhart, Philip
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot


Boothby, Sir Robert
Gough, C. F. H.
Kaberry, D.


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Gower, H. R.
Keegan, D.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Kerby, Capt. H. B.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Grant, W. (Woodside)
Kerr, H. W.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.(Nantwich)
Kershaw, J. A.


Braine, B. R.
Green, A.
Kimball, M.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Kirk, P. M.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Grimond, J.
Lambton, Viscount


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Leather, E. H. C.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Leavey, J. A.


Bryan, P.
Gurden, Harold
Leburn, W. G.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Carr, Robert
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Cole, Norman
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)
Llewellyn, D. T.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G.(Sutton Coldrield)


Cooke, Robert
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Longden, Gilbert


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Hay, John
Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Crowder, Petre (Ruisllp—Northwood)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Lucas, P.B.(Brentford &amp; Chiswick)


Cunningham, Knox
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Currie, G. B. H.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
McAdden, S. J.


Dance, J. C. G.
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Davidson, Viscountess
Hesketh, R. F.
McKibbin, A. J.


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Deedes, W. F.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Hobson, John (Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
McLean, Nell (Inverness)


Drayson, G. B.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


du Cann, E. D. L.
Holt, A. F.
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hope, Lord John
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Streets Act refers to taking over and maintaining for the benefit of the "inhabitants at large."

I therefore advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide against the Lords Amendment.

Question put, That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 299, Noes 230.

Maddan, Martin
Pott, H. P.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W.(Horncastle)
Powell, J. Enoch
Storey, S.


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Price, David (Eastielgh)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Price, Henry (Lewlsham, W.)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Profumo, J. D.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Mathew, R.
Raikes, Sir Victor
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Ramsden, J. E.
Teeling, W.


Mawby, R. L.
Rawlinson, Peter
Temple, John M.


Medlicott, Sir Frank
Redmayne, M.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Remnant, Hon. P.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Moore, Sir Thomas
Renton, D. L. M.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Ridsdale, J. E.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Rippon, A. G. F.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Robertson, Sir David
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Nairn, D. L. S.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Vane, W. M. F.


Weave, Airey
Robson-Brown, W.
Vaughan-Morgan, J K.


Nicholls, Harmar
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Roper, Sir Harold
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'leborn)


Nugent, G. R. H.
Russell, R. S.
Wall, Major Patrick


Oakshott, H. D.
Schofield Lt.-Col. W.
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Sharples, R. G.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Shepherd, William
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Webbe, Sir H.


Osborne, C.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Page, R. G.
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland)


Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Soames, Christopher
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Partridge, E.
Speir, R. M.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Peyton, J. W. W.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)
Wood, Hon. R.


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Woollam, John Victor


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Stevens, Geoffrey



Pitman, I. J.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Pitt, Miss E. M.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Mr. Richard Thompson and




Colonel J. H. Harrison.




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Holmes, Horace


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Howell, Denis (All Saints)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hubbard, T. F.


Awbery, S. S.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Deer, G.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Baird, J.
Delargy, H. J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Balfour, A.
Dodds, N. N.
Hunter, A, E.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Donnelly, D. L.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Hynd, J. B. (Atteroliffe)


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)


Benson, G.
Dye, S.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Beswick, Frank
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Janner, B.


Blackburn, F.
Edelman, M.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn &amp; St. Pncs, S.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)


Blyton, W. R.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Boardman, H.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)


Bowles, F. G.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)


Boyd, T. C.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Brockway, A. F.
Fienburgh, W.
Kenyon, C.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Finch, H. J.
King, Dr. H. M.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Fletcher, Eric
Lawson, G. M.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Forman, J. C.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Burke, W. A.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)
Lewis, Arthur


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Gibson, C. W.
Lindgren, G. S.


Callaghan, L. J.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Lipton, Marcus


Carmichael, J.
Greenwood, Anthony
Logan, D. G.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Grey, C. F.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Champion, A. J.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
MacColl, J. E.


Chapman, W. D.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
MacDermot, Niall


Chetwynd, G. R.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
McGhee, H. G.


Clunie, J.
Hale, Leslie
McGovern, J.


Coldrick, W.
Hamilton, W. W.
McInnes, J.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Hannan, W.
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Hayman, F. H.
MacMillan, M.K. (Western Isles)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Healey, Denis
MaoPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Cove, W. G.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Mahon, Simon


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Herblson, Miss M.
Malnwaring, W. H.


Cronin, J. D.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Mallalleu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)







Mann, Mrs. Jean
Probert, A. R.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Mason, Roy
Proctor, W. T.
Swingler, S. T.


Mellish, R. J.
Pryde, D. J.
Sylvester, G. O.


Messer, Sir F.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Mikardo, Ian
Randall, H. E.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Mitchison, C. R.
Rankin, John
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Monslow, W.
Redhead, E. C.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Moody, A. S.
Reeves, J.
Thornton, E.


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Rhodes, H.
Tomney, F.


Mort, D. L.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Moss, R.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Usborne, H. C.


Moyle, A.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Warbey, W. N.


Mulley, F. W.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Watkins, T. E.


Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Weitzman, D.


Oliver, G. H.
Ross, William
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Oram, A. E.
Royle, C.
West, D. G.


Orbach, M.
Short, E W.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Oswald, T.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Owen, W. J.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Wigg, George


Padley, W. E.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hon)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Paget, R. T.
Skeffington, A. M.
Williams, David (Neath)


Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Slater, Mrs. H (Stoke, N.)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Palmer, A. M. F.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Snow, J. W.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Pargiter, G. A.
Son-risen, R. W.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Parker, J.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Parkin, B. T.
Sparks, J. A.
Winterbottom, Richard


Pearson, A.
Steele, T.
Woof, R. E.


Pentland, N.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Plummer, Sir Leslie
Stonehouse, John
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Popplewell, E.
Stones, W. (Consett)
Zilliacus, K.


Prentice, R. E.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.



Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Stross, Dr. Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)
Mr. Wilkins and Mr. John Taylor

[With Special Entry.]

Clause 16.—(JURISDICTION OF COUNTY COURT OR SHERIFF AND PROCEDURE.)

Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 33, after "Act" insert:
and any apportionment made by the court or sheriff under the proviso to subsection (2) of the foregoing section.

Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The subsection to which this is an Amendment provides that apportionments of rates, or gross value, or rateable value which are made by the court, or in Scotland by the sheriff, for the purposes of the Bill are to be final and conclusive. It would be unreasonable if matters like that were taken to a higher court of appeal. There are precedents in the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920, and in the Housing Repairs and Rents Act, 1954. The same position appears to me to arise in the case of apportionment with street works and this Amendment will secure the same result in that case.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19.—(STATUTORY TENANCIES OF REQUISITIONED HOUSES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 15, line I 9, after "increase" insert:
applying to rent for any rental period beginning before the first day of April, nineteen hundred and sixty-five.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Bevins: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
One provision of the Requisitioned Houses and Housing (Amendment) Act, 1955, empowered local authorities to subsidise the rents of statutory tenancies of released requisitioned houses until 1st April, 1965, and, therefore, local authorities have an interest in receiving copies of the notice of rent increases until that date, but not later.
This and the following Lords Amendment simply say that copies of the notice shall be served on the local authorities until 1st April, 1965, but not later.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment made: In page 15, line 27, at end insert:
for any such rental period as aforesaid."—[Mr. Bevins.]

Clause 20.—(CONCURRENCE OF SUPERIOR LANDLORDS TO AGREEMENTS AS TO 1956 GROSS VALUE AND RATEABLE VALUE.)

Lords Amendment: In page 16, line 6, leave out "this Act" and insert:
the provisions of this Act relating to controlled tenancies and to the application of the Rent Acts".

Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is very little more than a drafting Amendment. It is designed to exclude the case of a furnished sub-letting from the scope of the Clause. In fact, the case of a furnished letting is not relevant here.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 22.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Lords Amendment made: In page 16, line 21, leave out "' the Act of 1939 '".[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Lords Amendment: In page 18, line 11, leave out
"fifteenth day of March," and insert "first day of April,".

Mr. Bevins: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
When the Bill was introduced, the date before which a proposal had to be made which was liable to affect either the gross value or the rateable value of a dwelling for the purpose of finding out the Bill rent or deciding questions of decontrol was given as 7th November, 1956.
On Report, the date was extended to 15th March, 1957, which happened to be the date on which the Amendment was tabled. Had a later date than 15th March been inserted in the Bill at that stage—say, 1st April—there would have been a risk that in certain cases both landlords and tenants might have lodged proposals to vary assessments, not to secure rating assessments on their properties but to vary them for the purposes of the Bill, that is to say, either to depress the gross rateable value for the purpose of paying a lower rent in future or, alternatively, to depress the rateable value in order to keep the house out of decontrol.
The view was then taken that unless the same date-15th March—was written into the Bill there was a real danger that the appeals machinery for assessments would be heavily overstrained. The Lords Amendment extends the period by a further two weeks, to 1st April, which means that a full twelve months has been provided from 1st April, 1956—when the new assessments came into force—for assessments to be altered for the purposes of the Bill. That brings the Bill into line with general valuation law, on the

ground that where an assessment has been wrong, and has been demonstrated to be wrong during the first twelve months the correction may date back to 1st April. 1956, which was the date when the assessments first came into force.
I think that the Lords Amendment is reasonable and I hope that the House will accept it.

Mr. Mitchison: That seems reasonable.

Question put and agreed to.

First Schedlile.—(ADJUSTMENT OF RENT IN RESPECT OF REPAIRS.)

Lords Amendments made: In page 20, line 26, leave out
"subsections (1) and (2)" and insert "subsection (1)."

In page 23, line 20, leave out "subsections (1) and (2)" and insert "subsection (1)."—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Lords Amendment: In page 24, line 17, leave out paragraph 9 and insert:

9.—(l) If a certificate of disrepair is issued to the tenant of a dwelling, and the dwelling, or any part thereof which is in disrepair by reason of defects specified in the certificate, is subject to a sub-tenancy, being a controlled tenancy, then unless a certificate of disrepair in respect of those defects has been issued to the sub-tenant the same consequences shall follow as between the tenant and the subtenant as if a certificate of disrepair had been issued to the sub-tenant when the certificate was issued to the tenant, had specified the same defects as the certificate issued to the tenant, had been issued on an application made by the sub-tenant when the tenant applied for the certificate issued to him, and had continued in force for the same period as that certificate.

(2) Where sub-paragraph (1) of the foregoing paragraph has effect as between the landlord and the tenant, the foregoing subparagraph shall have effect accordingly between the tenant and the sub-tenant.

(3) Nothing in this paragraph shall prejudice the power of the sub-tenant to obtain a certificate of disrepair or the effect of any undertaking given to the sub-tenant.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
At first sight, this appears to be a substantial Amendment, but, in fact, it is purely consequential upon the substitution, at an earlier stage in this House, of a new paragraph 7 (4) of the Schedule. That change having been made in this


House when the Bill was before it, it appeared necessary that we should redraft the paragraph to bring it into line with what the House had already done.

Question put and agreed to.

Fourth Schedule.—(TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS ON DECONTROL.)

Lords Amendment: In page 28, line 37, leave out from "as" to end of line 39 and insert:
would have been recoverable if section one of this Act had provided in all cases for a rent limit equal to the rent recoverable from the tenant for the last rental period beginning before the time of decontrol, that rent limit being subject to adjustment under section three of this Act but not to any other alteration."—[Mr. Bevins.]

Mr. Bevins: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
We are now on the Fourth Schedule, which governs the transitional decontrol provisions. Paragraph 3 freezes rents during the standstill period and the effect of the Amendment is to allow, in England and Wales, increases or decreases in rents and changes in rates which may take place. If rates rise it is permissible to add the increase to the rents, and vice versa.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 30, line 43, at the end to insert:

9.—(1) Where a tenancy which immediately before the time of decontrol was a controlled tenancy not falling within sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 2 of this Schedule contains a provision (however expressed) whereby the landlord is entitled, on or after the Rent Acts ceasing to apply to the dwelling-house, to increase the rent otherwise than in respect of rates, the provision of services or the use of furniture, and the amount by which the rent may be so increased is not specified by the terms of the tenancy, the tenant may by notice in writing served on the landlord not later than three months after the time of decontrol elect that as from the service of the notice the foregoing provisions of this Schedule shall apply as if the tenancy had been such a tenancy as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 2 of this Schedule.

(2) Where a notice is served under this paragraph the tenancy to which it relates, and any sub-tenancy thereof (whether or not an immediate sub-tenancy), shall come to an end on the service of the notice; and if any such sub-tenancy was one falling within the foregoing sub-paragraph, then as from the service of the notice the foregoing provisions of this Schedule shall apply as if the sub-tenancy had been such a tenancy as is mentioned in subparagraph (1) of paragraph 2 of this Schedule.

This sub-paragraph shall not prejudice the power of a sub-tenant to serve a notice under this paragraph where no such notice has been served by a superior tenant.

(3) In the case of a tenancy falling within sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph, the rent shall not in any case be increased under the terms of the tenancy as respects a rental period beginning before the expiration of three months after the time of decontrol.

10. For the purposes of this Schedule the power of a tenant under a tenancy for a term of years to terminate the tenancy at a specified point during the term shall not be treated as a power to terminate the tenancy by notice to quit.

Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a technical matter. I do not think there is any controversy about it, and I hope that the House will accept the Amendment. The Amendment was made in another place to meet the type of case which came to notice after the Bill had left this House. It is the case, which, I grant, is rare, where a tenancy is controlled, a tenancy having many years to, run, on a house which will be decontrolled under a previous Clause. This is a type of tenancy which entitles the landlord, at any time on the house becoming decontrolled, to give three months' notice of increase of rent, and, if the tenant is unwilling to pay the increase, to give him the option of surrendering the tenancy.
The House will appreciate that in that rare case, if the tenant did not agree to pay the increased rent, the house would become decontrolled almost immediately after the commencement of the Act, whereas no one else whose house becomes decontrolled is liable to receive a notice to quit that can take effect at the earliest before fifteen months after the commencement of the Act.
I hope that hon. Members will agree that it is desirable to provide for this special case, and by this Amendment we shall be giving the tenant three months after the time of decontrol in which he can elect to have the protection of the fifteen months' standstill period. It will give the tenant the same type of right as every other tenant of a house which is decontrolled and he will be safeguarded against a risk to which otherwise he might be exposed by the special terms of his lease. I am sure it is right that we should safeguard such a person from being put in an especially unfavourable position.

Mr. Mitchison: The right hon. Gentleman will agree that he hid himself from the 1922 Committee in a singular complication of circumstances before he thought of offering this small advantage to the tenant.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 31, line 23, at the end to insert:
 (a) in paragraph 3 for the words from `be the same as 'to the end of the paragraph there shall be substituted the words be the same as was recoverable from him for the last rental period beginning before that time';

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. William Grant): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is purely a drafting Amendment. The object is to retain for Scotland the original wording of paragraph 3 of the Fourth Schedule, which was amended at a later stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Fifth Schedule.—(ASCERTAINMENT AND ADJUSTMENT OF RATEABLE VALUE AND 1956 GROSS VALUE.)

Lords Amendments made: In page 32, line 22, leave out "sub-paragraph" and insert "sub-paragraphs"—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

In line 38, leave out "fifteenth day of March" and insert "first day of April".

In page 34, line 19, leave out "fifteenth day of March" and insect "first day of April".—[Mr Bevins.]—[Special Entry.]

In line 35, leave out from "made" to "on" in line 36.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

In page 35, line 45, leave out from beginning to "bears" in line 46 and insert "(d) what proportion his contribution, if any".—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Sixth Schedule.—(MINOR AND CONSE-QUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND APPLICATION OF ENACTMENTS.)

Lords Amendment made: In page 37, line 38, after
"Act" insert:
(including any sum irrecoverable by virtue of section fourteen thereof)".—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Lords Amendment: In page 41, line 25, leave out from "effect" to "in" in line 26.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move. That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Perhaps it would 14: for the convenience of the House if we discussed, at the same time, the further Lords Amendments, in line 28, leave out "twenty-six pounds 'and sixteen pounds' "and insert" and twenty-six pounds '"and in line 29, leave out from" pounds'" to end of line 33 and insert "and fifty-two pounds.'".
Revised rental figures which were inserted in Section 2 of the Housing Act, 1926, will apply, by paragraph 22 of this Schedule, only to contracts entered into after the commencement of the Act. The Bill, as introduced, contained no provision relating to that Section 2, which imposes certain conditions relating to the letting of houses below a certain rateable value.
Reference was made to this matter from the benches opposite on the Second Reading, and a Government Amendment was added at a later stage—in fact, paragraph 22—to meet the point in a comprehensive way by doubling the figure mentioned in Section 2. That seemed to do rough justice and to be a fair way of proceeding, but it was pointed out in another place that paragraph 22 went too far, and, in seeking to do rough justice, did injustice in that it would apply to existing contracts. The Lords Amendment was, therefore, made to limit the operation of paragraph 22 to contracts entered into after the commencement of the Bill.
There are two reasons. One is that if Section 2 applies to existing contracts it will continue to apply despite any increase of rent under the Bill. The second is that if Section 2 does not apply it would be wrong that the Section should be applied to existing contracts now, because that would import another provision after the parties had contracted on the basis that the landlord had no such implied liability for repairs as is put on him by Section 2. I hope that the House will agree that it would be unreasonable to import a provision in that way. The sole purpose of the Lords Amendment is to correct that injustice.

Mr. MacDermot: I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify his explanation a little further. I have fears that the Lords Amendment will operate in a manner different from what he said. Section 2 of the Housing Act, 1936, reproduces the provisions of Section 1 of the


Housing Act, 1925, to give a very necessary protection to tenants of certain small dwellings which were let at a very low rental. The protection was to compel the landlord both to put and to keep the premises in a habitable state. Most tenancies of this kind are made in such a way that there is no provision for repairs on either side in the contract. What the Section did was to introduce into the contract by legislation a provision that the landlord should be responsible at least for that minimum of repairs. The tenancies to which it applied were tenancies in the London area, where the rent was up to £40, and outside the London area, where the rent was £26 a year.
There was a further provision that tenants of dwellings outside large towns who held by reference to a contract made before 31st July, 1923, had the advantage of the implied term only if the rent did not exceed 6s. 8d. a week. That was so where the tenant held as a contractual tenant, or where he held as a statutory tenant. As I understand the provision, it was governed by what the rent was at any particular moment, including when the rent had been increased by a statutory notice served by the landlord passing on to the tenant any increase in rates.
The position under the Bill as it stands is that the protection to tenants of such dwellings is extended to cases where the rent is up to I3s. 4d. a week. That is the effect of the words in paragraph 22 as at present drafted, and of the £16. What the proposed Amendment does is not merely to deal with the question of the retrospective effect of the paragraph but it also deals with that part which doubled the £16. The effect, as I understand the paragraph, is that virtually all tenants within that class of property will now lose the protection of the implied terms, the reason for that being that the landlord will be entitled to increase the rent by the appropriate factor, in most cases increasing the rent to double the gross value, that is to say, double the 1939 letting value.
It follows from that that in virtually all cases the rent will be at least double, if not more. The landlord, therefore, will be given the power to increase the rent, virtually to double it, in order to do repairs and at the same time will he exempted from the legal liability to keep

the place fit for human habitation. I shall be grateful if the Minister can explain that a little further.

Mr. H. Brooke: If I may speak again with the leave of the House, I hope that I shall be able to satisfy the hon. Member. He is fearful lest certain tenants who at present enjoy, shall I say, the protection of Section 2 of the 1936 Act will lose it through their rent being increased consequent on this Measure. I can assure him that is not so.
If they have a contract to which Section 2 of the 1936 Act already applies, I am satisfied that that Section will continue to apply, although the rent rises. The reason for that is that it is the rent at the date at which the contract is entered that is material for the purposes of the application of that Section.

Mr. Mitchison: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know his own mind? We introduced this point at an early stage in the discussions on this Bill. We put down an Amendment and the right hon. Gentleman did something quite simple which we could readily understand. He doubled the figures in Section 2 of the Housing Act of 1936. What he has done now, as far as I can see, is to remove protection altogether from a class of people in agricultural areas. Apparently, the Tory Party believes in giving them subsidies, but not any protection against the landlord.

Mr. Brooke: Mr. Brooke indicated dissent.

Mr. Mitchison: I see the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head, but will he tell me what he means by the omission from this Clause of the reference to £16 and twice £16—which, for his information, is £32—which appeared in the original Clause? If he can tell me that, would he mind stopping shaking his head?
Let us see what the Clause is. It is the only protection that most of the tenants of small houses have against landlords. As a rule, nobody as between the one and the other is responsible for repairs, and Parliament, as long ago as 1925 at least, deliberately put in a Section of this nature, notwithstanding any contractual arrangement, to protect the tenants of small houses.
I have looked at the corresponding Section in the Housing Act, 1925, and but for a couple of quite immaterial.


verbal differences the language is exactly the same as is in force today, and, what is far more important, the figures 2.re exactly the same. Apparently, it takes the stimulus of an active Opposition and an Amendment on the Notice Paper to induce the Minister of Housing and Local Government in a Tory Government to think that it is about time that the limits of 1925 were included; and surely, in all conscience, they are.
Why is the right hon. Gentleman now withdrawing from the concession he made in his own Clause, introduced by him, in his own drafting, which I suppose he understood quite clearly, in Committee? Is the party opposite entirely dominated by what happens in another place? What is the reason for this change? Why is it that when there is any question of a concession to landlords, the party opposite strain every point in their favour and give them the benefit of every doubt, whereas the moment there is a question of this quite small concession to

Division No. 140.]
AYES
[11.14 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Cole, Norman
Comme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan


Aitken, W. T.
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Goodhart, Philip


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Cooke, Robert
Gough, C. F. H.


Alport, C. J. M.
Cooper, A. E.
Gower, H. R.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Graham, Sir Fergus


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Grant, W. (Woodside)


Arbuthnot, John
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)


Armstrong, C. W.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Green, A.


Ashton, H.
Cunningham, Knox
Gresham Cooke, R.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Currie, G. B. H.
Grimond, J.


Atkins, H. E.
Dance, J. C. G.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Davidson, Viscountess
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Baldwin, A. E.
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.


Balnicl, Lord
Deedes, W. F.
Gurden, Harold


Barber, Anthony
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Barlow, Sir John
Dodds-Parker, A. D
Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Barter, John
Doughty, C. J. A.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Drayson, G. B.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
du Cann, E. D. L.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Duthie, W. S.
Harvey, Air Cdre A. V. (Macclasfd)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, W.)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Bidgood, J. C.
Elliott, R.W.(N'castle upon Tyne. N.)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. (Kelvingrove)
Hay, John


Bishop, F. P.
Emmett, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Black, C. W.
Errington, Sir Eric
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.


Body, R. F.
Erroll, F. J.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Boothby, Sir Robert
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Finlay, Graeme
Hesketh, R. F.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Fisher, Nigel
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Forrest, G.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)


Braine, B. R.
Fort, R.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Foster, John
Hobson, John (Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Freeth, Denzil
Holt, A. F.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Galbralth, Hon. T. G. D.
Hope, Lord John


Browne, J. Nixon (Cralgton)
Gammans, Lady
Hornby, R. P.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Horobin, Sir Ian


Carr, Robert
Gibson-Watt, D.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence


Chichester-Clark, R.
Glover, D.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Godber, J. B.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

tenants, particularly to tenants of very small houses in agricultural districts, we get the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend first making a concession and then withdrawing it?

I know perfectly well why they have withdrawn it, but I must not refer to what happened in another place. I can only say that if any hon. Member chooses to look up the reason, he will not find it satisfactory for the withdrawal from tenants of small houses, particularly very small houses, old houses, in agricultural districts, of the one protection they have got by way of getting repairs done by landlords. I regard this Amendment as a small but not unimportant and entirely typical alteration of the Bill made under this Government in another place. We shall, of course, oppose it.

Question put That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 297, Noes 223.

Howard, John (Test)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Roper, Sir Harold


Hudson, W. B. A. (Hull, N.)
Maddan, Martin
Russell, R. S.


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W.(Hornoastle)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Schofteld, Lt.-Col. W.


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Hurd, A. R.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Sharpies, R. C.


Hutchison, A. M. C. (Edinburgh, S.)
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Shepherd, William


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark(E'b'gh, W.)
Marshall, Douglas
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Mathew, R.
Smithers, Peter (Winchaster)


Hyde, Montgomery
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Hylton-Foster, Bt. Hon. Sir Harry
Mawby, R. L.
Soames, Christopher


Iremonger, T. L.
Medllcott, Sir Frank
Speir, R. M.


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Moore, Sir Thomas
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Nairn, D. L. S.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Joseph, Sir Keith
Neave, Airey
Storey, S.


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Nicholls, Harmar
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Kaberry, D.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Keegan, D.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Kerr, H. W.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Kershaw, J. A.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Kimball, M.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)
Teeling, W.


Kirk, P. M.
Osborne, C.
Temple, John M.


Lambton, Viscount
Page, R. G.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Leather, E. H. C.
Partridge, E.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Leavey, J. A.
Paton, John
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Leburn, W. G.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Lennox-Boyd, Bt. Hon. A. T.
Pitman, I. J.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Vane, W. M. F.


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Pott, H. P.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Llewellyn, D. T.
Powell, J. Enoch
Vickers, Miss Joan


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (Sutton Coldfield)
Price, David (Eastlelgh)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)



Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Wakefield, Sir Waved (St. M'lebone)


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Wall, Major Patrick


Longden, Gilbert
Profumo, J. D.
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.
Raikes, Sir Victor
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Ramsden, J. E.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Rawlinton, Peter
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


McAdden, S. J.
Redmayne, M.
Whiteiaw, W. S. I.


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland)


McKibbin, A. J.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Renton, D. L. M.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Ridsdale, J. E.
Wood, Hon. R.


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Rippon, A. G. F.
Woollam, John Victor


Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Robertson, Sir David
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)



Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Robson-Brown, W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Mr. Oakshott and Mr. Bryan.




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Burton, Miss F. E.
Dye, S.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Edelman, M.


Allen, Scholefleld (Crewe)
Callaghan, L. J.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)


Awbery, S. S.
Carmichael, J.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Baird, J.
Champion, A. J.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Chapman, W. D.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Chetwynd, G. R.
Fernyhough, E.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Clunie, J.
Fienburgh, W.


Benson, G.
Coldrick, W.
Finch, H. J.


Baswick, Frank
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Fletcher, Eric


Blackburn, F.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Forman, J. C.


Blenkinsop, A.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Blyton, W. R.
Cronin, J. D.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Boardman, H.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Car'then)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Gibson, C. W.


Bowles, F. G.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Boyd, T. C.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Greenwood, Anthony


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Grey, C. F.


Brockway, A. F.
Deer, G.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Delargy, H. J.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Dodds, N. N.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Donnelly, D. L.
Hale, Leslie


Burke, W. A.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwoh)
Hamilton, W. W.







Hannan, W.
Mellish, R. J.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Hayman, F. H.
Mikardo, Ian
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Healey, Denis
Mitchison, G. R.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Monslow, W.
Snow, J. W.


Herbison, Miss M.
Moody, A. S.
Sorensen, R. W.


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Mort, D. L.
Sparks, J. A.


Holmes, Horace
Moss, R.
Steele, T.


Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Moyle, A.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Hubbard, T. F.
Mulley, F. W.
Stonehouse, John


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Stones, W. (Consett)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oliver, G. H.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oram, A. E.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Hunter, A. E.
Orbach, M.
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Oswald, T.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Owen, W. J.
Swingler, S. T.


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Padley, W. E.
Sylvester, G. O.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Paget, R. T.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Janner, B.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pncs. S.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W)


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Pargiter, G. A.
Thornton, E.



Parker, J.
Tomney, F.


Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Parkin, B. T.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Pearson, A.
Usborne, H. C.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Pentland, N.
Warbey, W. N.


Kenyon, C.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Watkins, T. E.


King, Dr. H. M.
Popplewell, E.
Weitzman, D.


Lawson, G. M.
Prentice, R. E.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
West, D. G.


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Probert, A. R.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Proctor, W. T.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Lewis, Arthur
Pryde, D. J.
Wigg, George


Lindgren, G. S.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Lipton, Marcus
Randall, H. E.
Williams, David (Neath)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Rankin, John
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


MacColl, J. E.
Redhead, E. C.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


MacDermot, Niall
Reeves, J.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


McGhee, H. G.
Rhodes, H.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


McGovern, J.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Mclnnes, J.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


McKay John (Wallsend)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Winterbottom, Richard


MaoMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Woof, R. E.


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Mahon, Simon
Ross, William
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Mainwaring, W. H.
Short, E. W.
Zilliacus, K.


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)



Mann, Mrs. Jean
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mason, Roy
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Mr. Wilkins and Mr. J. T. Price.


Mayhew, C. P.
Skeffington, A. M.

Further Lords Amendments made: In page 41, line 28, leave out "twenty-six pounds 'and sixteen pounds' "and insert" and twenty-six pounds'."

In line 29, leave out from "pounds'" to end of line 33 and insert "and fifty-two pounds.'"

In line 40, leave out "Act of" and insert:
Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act,".—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Lords Amendment: In page 43, line 2, at beginning insert:

28. Section five of the Removal Terms (Scotland) Act, 1886, shall have effect as if at the end thereof there were added the following—
Provided that in no case shall notice of removal be given less than twenty-eight days before the date on which it is to take effect.

29. Section thirty-eight of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act, 1907, shall have effect as if at the end of thereof there were added the following—

Provided that in no case shall notice of removal be given less than twenty-eight days before the date on which it is to take effect.

30.—(1) The House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1911, shall be amended as follows.

(2) In section four for the words "the next payment" in the first place where they occur there shall be substituted the words "a payment", and for those words in the second place where they occur there shall be substituted the words "that payment", and in paragraph (b) of the proviso for the words from "except" to the end of the section there shall be substituted the words "so, however, that in no case shall the notice be given less than twenty-eight days before the date on which it is to take effect."

(3) In section five for the words "forty-eight hours" there shall be substituted the words "twenty-eight days".

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment, although rather lengthy, is simple. It gives to the Scottish tenant the right of the four weeks' notice to quit, the provision which was inserted in the Bill at an earlier stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Further Lords Amendment made: In page 43, line 34, at beginning insert "Paragraph 1.".—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

Seventh Schedule.(GENERAL TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS.)

Lords Amendment made: In page 44, line 25, leave out "subsections (1) and (2)" and insert "subsection (1)".—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Lords Amendment: In page 44, line 43, at end insert:
and that paragraph (b) of the proviso to the said subsection (3) shall not apply.

Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is linked with the Amendment in page 5, line 13, and was debated earlier with that Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

SOLICITORS BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

DENTISTS BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Clauses I to 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

First Schedule.—(THE GENERAL DENTAL COUNCIL AND ITS COMMITTEES.)

Amendment made: In page 34, leave out lines 1 to 4.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Schedule as amended agreed to.

Second Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, considered: read the Third time and passed, with an Amendment.

SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Hornsea

[copy laid before the House, 30th May], approved.—[Mr. Simon.]

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Hoyland Nether [copy laid before the House, 30th May], approved.—[Mr. Simon.]

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Pontypool [copy laid before the House, 30th May], approved.—[Mr. Simon.]

KENYA (DETAINEE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr.Hughes-Young.]

11.31 p.m.

Mr. John Stonehouse: I wish to raise the case of Richard Achieng Oneko who is detained at the Takwa detention camp on Mageta Island, Kenya, under the Emergency Regulations. He has been imprisoned in Kenya since the end of 1952, more than four and a half years ago. Numerous appeals have been made to the Secretary of State for his release, but the Secretary of State has been unable to consider them.
I raise the matter tonight to plead with the Secretary of State to look more closely at the case and see that justice is done. I ask him to recognise that there is great concern in Kenya, and, indeed, in this country, about the number of detainees who are imprisoned without any charges being brought against them. There is great anxiety that the detainees should be released as soon as possible. The sooner Kenya can return to the normal rule of law the better it will be for that unhappy country which has been torn by Mau Mau terrorism and repression during the past five years.
By giving individual consideration to cases such as that of Achieng Oneko, the Secretary of State will show the humanity and sympathy which are so badly needed in the responsibilities which he exercises on behalf of us all in this country. He will be able to pave the way to greater confidence between all races in Kenya and help to eradicate the enmity and hate which have unfortunately existed.
Why do I raise this case? I raise it because I know Achieng Oneko well. I first met him in December, 1951, when he came to England. At that time he impressed all those he met with his intelligence and balanced approach to the political and economic problems of Kenya. I saw him frequently during the three months that he spent here. I entertained him in my own home and had long discussions with him on various problems, and generally formed a very high opinion of his character.
In August, 1952, some months after he had returned to Kenya, I went to Uganda with my family, and on the way I spent three days in Nairobi and saw a lot of Achieng Oneko again. I was again impressed by his balanced approach to the problems that Kenya was facing. It was with real amazement that a few weeks after I had seen him in Nairobi I heard that he had been arrested and that charges were to be brought against him as being an organiser of Mau Mau. I believe him to be utterly incapable of associating himself with the evils perpetrated by Mau Mau.
He was put on trial with Jomo Kenyatta at Kapenguria at the famous trial which took so many months. In February, 1953, I went to the trial as a character witness on his behalf. To quote from a newspaper account of the case, I said to the court:
When I saw the charges, I was surprised and, in fact, alarmed, for I was convinced he could not be guilty of the charges brought against him.
That is what I said at the time at Kapenguria, and I still believe it to be the case.
During the trial I was able to have another conversation with him, and despite the strain of the trial on him, his demeanour was quite good and I was able again to form a good opinion of him. The trial, as some of us in the House remember, dragged on for some months and eventually sentences were given in April, 1953. On appeal to the Supreme Court of Kenya in January, 1954, Achieng was acquitted of all the charges against him and, in his summing up, the judge referred to his good character. I should like the Under-Secretary to comment on the fact that, despite his acquittal, for three years Achieng has been denied his freedom and his wife and children are suffering as a result of his detention.
Another aspect of this case which is most serious and to which I should like the Under-Secretary to give some attention is the extreme pressure being brought on Achieng, in a variety of ways, to confess to crimes he did not commit. The rehabilitation officials in Kenya have even gone so far as to write to friends of Achieng in this country appealing to them to persuade Achieng to confess.
I want to quote from something written by Mr. Alfred Becker, who describes himself as being in charge of rehabilitation in the Lamu district in Kenya. The letter was written on 12th October, 1955, to someone in Scotland who is corresponding with Achieng. He said:
I am the Rehabilitation Officer who is in charge of the camp, where Mr. Achieng stays.…I wonder if you as a friend of Mr. Achieng could influence him to change his attitude. There is no doubt in the mind of every official concerned with his case that he is deeply involved in the Mau Mau business. It is therefore pathetic to see how he struggles against all odds to gain his freedom by complete denial. His family suffers and lives in poverty. He would be well advised to put his duty towards his family above his imagined duty as a leader of a tribe. I am of course not in a position to make any promises or to enter any bargain. But it is my considered opinion that he cannot get released for a very long time to come unless he decides to make a full confession first.
What possible right has an official in Kenya to assume the guilt of a man who has been acquitted of all charges by the highest court in Kenya? It is alien to all sense of justice and alien to common sense, and it shows the stupidity of the officials who have charge of these camps. Presumably those are the officials on whom the Secretary of State depends for advice before these detainees are released.
When on 8th May I asked the Secretary of State when Achieng would be released, he said that control over him was necessary in order to maintain law and order and that the case had been gone into by the Advisory Committee in Kenya. I sincerely hope that the Under-Secretary of State will not shelter behind that sort of excuse. Knowing Achieng as I do, I submit that giving him his freedom would in no way prejudice public order in Kenya. On the contrary, he would eventually be able to play a very useful part within his community and in the future of Kenya itself. On


those grounds, and on grounds of common justice, I beg for his release.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse), I know Achieng Oneko personally. I am even going to wait until the Minister has finished his conversation, because I want to make a very intimate and personal appeal to him. 1 want to tell him that I have known this man not just as a politician or as a man with whom I have had political discussions, but as a human being. I have known him in my own home; I have known him with my family, and I have known him in innumerable close human associations. I not only bear out what my hon. Friend has said about him, but I tell the Minister that everyone who met him either in London or in Kenya, in those personal associations, has exactly the same impression of Achieng as we have.
He is one of the gentlest men I have ever known. When I heard that he was to be tried for association with Mau Mau the whole thing was utterly incredible to me, as it was to all those who knew him. He went through long months of trial; he went to the Supreme Court, and the judge there dismissed the case against him and paid a tribute to his character, just as my hon. Friend and I have done this evening; he was released, but under the detention laws in Kenya he was immediately re-arrested, and he has been kept in detention ever since.
The information which my hon. Friend has given has been previously given by me in this House. From the Government Front Bench a repudiation has been made of the action of the authorities at that camp. But let us see the situation as a tribute to the character of the man himself. It is indicated to him that if he will confess his association with Mau Mau he will be released. He has never had any association with Mau Mau: he is not the kind of man who could touch Mau Mau or its atrocities or obscenities, and he declines to confess to something of which he has not been guilty.
I cannot speak of the effect upon me when I found that a British officer in that camp had actually written to a friend in this country urging her to encourage Achieng to confess for the sake of the

wife and the children outside that detention camp, who were in hunger. I cannot imagine anything more indecent and cruel than to attempt to extort a confession from a man on the ground that because he is in detention his family is in hunger and in want. We who know this man know that he is not guilty. We say to the Minister this evening that he has no right to speak of democracy and liberty as British characteristics when he himself is guilty of this atrocious crime against the liberty of a man who is much better than he is himself. Yes. I have not the knowledge of the hon. Gentleman that I have of Achieng, but I know few people who are as fine in character as that man is, whom the Minister is responsible for keeping in detention after he was acquitted in the highest court and after the judge and other people had paid tribute to his character.
I say this to the hon. Gentleman. He has no right to condemn Communist countries for their dictatorship, for their totalitarianism, for their repudiation of liberty, when at this moment he is responsible for a good and innocent man being kept in prison for years on a charge on which the highest court in Kenya found him not guilty. I put that to the conscience of the hon. Gentleman, and I am speaking with a sincerity which has never been greater. I say that the least he can do is to ask the Government of Kenya to have an impartial investigation into this case again, because he is cruelly crucifying a man for a crime he never committed, a man whose character and ability might be of constructive value to the Kenya of the future.

11.47 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. John Profumo): I fully recognise the depth of feeling on this and other matters of this sort experienced by some hon. Members. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) for raising this subject. It provides me with an opportunity of trying to correct certain misconceptions which, I think, are still current about the circumstances in which various people are detained in Kenya and to explain the necessity for their continued detention, notwithstanding an appreciable improvement in the emergency situation in the Colony in recent months. I know that


hon. Members will view this improvement with considerable satisfaction.
Of course, we have had from time to time a number of Parliamentary Questions about the matter and my right hon. Friend and I have explained the attitude of the Kenya Government. But the limited time available at Question Time has made it rather difficult to give a detailed and comprehensive explanation of the Government's policy on this question.
Mr. Richard Achieng Oneko is one of about 26,000 people who, up to the present, remain in detention out of a total of 65,000 whose freedom of action has had to be restricted in the course of the emergency. He is not a Kikuyu but a Luo. He is one of a group of more prominent detainees who played some part in public life before the emergency. These men are all detained, not because of this prominence, but because the Governor considers—and this is the point —that control over them is necessary for the maintenance of public order.
Their detention is not designed to stifle trade union or legitimate political activities, nor is their release delayed—I do not think this was suggested—for this purpose. Oneko held high office in the Kenya African Union, which was proscribed in June, 1953, for its deep involvement in Mau Mau. He was General Secretary from August to October, 1952, when he was arrested and sent for trial with Jomo Kenyatta and others on a charge of assisting in the management of the Mau Mau organisation. He was convicted at Kapenguria in April, 1953, after a full trial, and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment with hard labour.
As the hon. Member has already mentioned, he was acquitted on appeal to the Supreme Court, but on acquittal he was detained on authority of a Detention Order made by the Governor under Emergency Regulation 2 (1), which authorises such action whenever the Governor is satisfied that it is necessary for the purpose of maintaining public order.
Hon. Members have suggested that the detention of this man, on the ground that it is a measure necessary in the

context of defeating the Mau Mau conspiracy, is unjustified since he was acquitted on appeal in the courts of helping to organise Mau Mau. The hon. Member for Wednesbury asked my Department for a copy of the Supreme Court's judgment on this appeal. I am afraid that I have not had time to obtain one for him from Kenya. The three copies we had in London went to the lawyers when the case of his codefendants went to the Privy Council, and I have not been able to recover them. I have, however, one passage from the Supreme Court's judgment at my disposal. In it the court state that, although they were allowing his appeal,
they were satisfied that he was a Mau Mau sympathiser.
I think this part is important enough for me to read the actual words. It said:
We have grave doubts that the evidence establishes with sufficient certitude"—
that is, with the certitude which is necessary to satisfy a court operating with the high standards of proof required by British justice—
that Achieng was a member of Mau Mau although we are satisfied.… that he was sympathetic to Mau Mau.
Whatever else may have been said at that time, those are the actual words that were used. In any event, acquittal on appeal of the charge of helping Mau Mau is not any reason why, because his liberty of action is regarded by the Governor of Kenya as a threat to public safety, a man should not continue to be detained.
The hon. Member implied that the reasons for detaining Oneko were flimsy. While I appreciate the sincerity of what he said, I would point out that this is a matter whose merits cannot be decided at this distance even by those who know the individuals concerned. The Governor and his Advisory Committee have all the facts at their disposal locally, including a close knowledge of the state of law and order, and are fully satisfied of the need for his detention. It is not as if these people were ogres who liked nothing better than to keep men in prison. This is shown by their release of 45,663 people already.
One cannot speak of the circumstances in which a man is put into detention or released from it, except against the background of the general security position in the Colony. Although there has been a


marked improvement in the emergency situation in recent months and a number of emergency regulations have been relaxed or revoked, and in particular the death penalty has been removed for all emergency offences, the emergency cannot—I have said this in the House before —yet be considered over. There must be no relaxation of effort to remove the remaining threat to the safety and future of all sections of the community in Kenya.
It has also been suggested that the Advisory Committee is little more than a rubber stamp for the unquestioned decisions of the Executive. That really is wrong. The appeal procedure of the Committee is extremely important. In order to get the facts straight, I had better deal with them a little further.
On detention, every detainee is informed of his right of appeal to the Governor against his detention. These appeals are heard by an advisory committee under the chairmanship of a judge of the Supreme Court. It considers the evidence on which the man was detained, examines him on it and advises the Governor whether or not the man should be released. The Advisory Committee has received appeals from 2,476 people and has already heard 2,231 cases, and 1.058 of these have been released on the advice of the Committee. Richard Achieng Oneko's was one such appeal, which was considered in 1954 but was rejected.
The high number of releases shows that this Committee is doing an independent job and trying to do its job with every justice. It has not been influenced by the Government or, of course, by the Governor. I make this plain because the hon. Member seemed to feel that there was a chance of an innocent man failing to make out his case before the Advisory Committee and then finding that release was barred unless he underwent rehabilitation.
I should like to deal now with the question of rehabilitation. This, of course, includes voluntary confession of past associations with Mau Mau. I must make it plain that confession is not the test by which detainees are released or not released. Confession, of course, is psychologically important in the rehabilitation process in the case of Kikuyu, Embu and Meru tribes, with their

customs and psychology, and to average people of that sort confession is really essential since without it a man does not consider he has purged himself of the Mau Mau oath.
Both hon. Members mentioned the question of Dr. Becker writing a letter. I ought to mention this, because it has some relevance and importance. It was an idea of his that he should write a letter to a lady who knew Oneko to see whether that lady could persuade this man to confess. Owing to a misunderstanding, the letter which this doctor drafted was actually posted to Mrs. Klopper. After investigation the Governor was satisfied that Dr. Becker's suggestion that he should write to the lady was because of a sincere desire to help Oneko himself. The letter was not sent with the authority of the Kenya Government but by a sheer mistake. Following the investigation, Dr. Becker was transferred to another district. It is not the policy of the Kenya Government to stimulate confessions. Such a practice, in fact, is entirely against the established policy, which is that a confession to have any effect must, of course, be entirely voluntary. I am sorry to have to digress on that point, but I know that both hon. Members felt it important, and I want to make plain that this is not the sort of thing which happens and it was not done with the permission of the Government of Kenya.
The Kenya Government made a statement last November in which it was made clear that Mau Mau sympathisers, who can only be made good citizens again over a period of years, will not he allowed to return to freedom to endanger the peace and security of their country. I cannot say now whether Oneko would be among the number whose freedom would have to be restricted in this way, but I think there is general agreement that the country's progress to normal cannot be allowed to suffer a serious check by freeing these men indiscriminately.
Perhaps I can summarise our attitude to this case. Richard Achieng Oneko is held in detention for the same reason as the remaining 26,000 men whom the Governor considers it necessary to control in the interests of public order. Both hon. Members have said it is quite


ridiculous to think this man could constitute a threat to public order. I can only repeat that, whatever they may feel—and I want hon. Members to understand that both the Secretary of State and I have looked at all the facts of this case and many others that are open to us here most carefully—we do not feel that we could in any way question the rights of the Governor or the way in which the Governor is interpreting the emergency regulations. These decisions must be left to the people on the spot. We really must trust them to carry out their responsibility, and the Secretary of State and I have absolutely no reason to believe that that is not being done in the highest possible way.
Oneko has had the same opportunity as others to make his case to the Advisory Committee, but that Committee did not feel able to recommend his release to the Governor. I have tried to point out how that Committee is impartial. It would be rash, I think, for those of us in London to contest the decision which

the Governor, in the light of all the local circumstances, has seen fit to take. In my view, the ventilation of this case only shows good cause for the support given by my right hon. Friend to the great humanity and practical wisdom of Sir Evelyn Baring. Thanks to it the Colony is rapidly returning to normal and so many thousands of ex-detainees are able again to make a useful and peaceful contribution to the progress of their land.
could not expect that an answer of this sort would satisfy the hon. Members opposite, but at least I want them to know that it has satisfied my right hon. Friend and myself and that we shall continue to watch these and all other cases, realising that the Governor and all his officials are doing a splendid job and one which, I think, this House ought to recognise perhaps more than it has in the past.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twelve o'clock.